| Page Range | 19869-20147 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 3301(h) | |
| 80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Specify That Affiliated Exchange ETP Holders May Request That the Exchange Aggregate Its Eligible Activity With Activity of the ETP Holder's Affiliates for Purposes of Charges or Credits Based on Volume | |
| 80 FR 19869 - Delegation of Authority To Transfer Certain Funds in Accordance With Section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended | |
| 80 FR 19988 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19967 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19980 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 80 FR 20057 - In the Matter of Triumph Ventures Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 20049 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20057 - Order of Suspension of Trading | |
| 80 FR 19994 - Injury Prevention Program; Announcement; New and Competing Continuation Cooperative Agreement | |
| 80 FR 19956 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease Vaccine, Serotype 1, Live Virus | |
| 80 FR 19956 - Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19955 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Field Testing a Marek's Disease-Newcastle Disease Vaccine, Serotype 3, Live Marek's Disease Vector | |
| 80 FR 19974 - Request for Information: Updating and Improving the DOE Methodology for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Building Energy Codes | |
| 80 FR 19885 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meeting and Webinar | |
| 80 FR 19972 - DOE Participation in Development of the International Energy Conservation Code | |
| 80 FR 19991 - Administration for Native Americans; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20061 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Repatriation/Emergency Medical and Dietary Assistance Loan Application | |
| 80 FR 20011 - Addition to the Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions | |
| 80 FR 20060 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evacuee Manifest and Promissory Note | |
| 80 FR 20010 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 80 FR 19965 - Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From Taiwan: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 19958 - Production Activity Not Authorized; Foreign-Trade Zone 57-Charlotte, North Carolina; Gildan Yarns, LLC; (Cotton, Cotton/Polyester Yarns); Salisbury, North Carolina | |
| 80 FR 19961 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 19958 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 50-Long Beach, California; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Mercedes Benz USA, LLC; (Accessorizing Motor Vehicles); Long Beach, California | |
| 80 FR 19982 - Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 80 FR 19889 - Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 HondaJet, Lithium-Ion Batteries | |
| 80 FR 19959 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 63 Under Alternative Site Framework; Prince George's County, Maryland | |
| 80 FR 19958 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 286; (Expansion of Service Area); Under Alternative Site Framework; Caledonia, Essex and Orleans Counties, Vermont | |
| 80 FR 20010 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19964 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 | |
| 80 FR 19960 - Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20020 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
| 80 FR 19960 - Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20003 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Office of Training and Workforce Engagement Canine Training and Evaluation Branch End of Course Level 1 Evaluation (Formerly Named: National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program Handler Training Assessment Survey) | |
| 80 FR 20017 - University of Michigan's Ford Nuclear Reactor Facility | |
| 80 FR 19959 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19959 - Transportation And Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19960 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19971 - Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, 2.0, for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification Program | |
| 80 FR 20018 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes | |
| 80 FR 20031 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes | |
| 80 FR 20003 - Intent To Request Renewal From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers | |
| 80 FR 20005 - Establishment of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee: Solicitation of Appointment Nominations | |
| 80 FR 20004 - Advance Notice of Digital Opportunity Demonstration; Additional Contact Information | |
| 80 FR 20005 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing | |
| 80 FR 20007 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Reform Demonstration (Task Order 2) | |
| 80 FR 20009 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Voucher Management System (VMS) | |
| 80 FR 19972 - Procedural Manual for the Election Assistance Commission's Voting System Testing and Certification Program, Version 2.0 | |
| 80 FR 20001 - Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Public Input | |
| 80 FR 19967 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 80 FR 20081 - National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19990 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, SEP; Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 19990 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 19988 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 19989 - Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) | |
| 80 FR 19989 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP); Initial Review | |
| 80 FR 19989 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, BSC, OID | |
| 80 FR 19990 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BSC, NIOSH | |
| 80 FR 19981 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 19979 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 19970 - Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20012 - Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same Institution of Investigation | |
| 80 FR 19941 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 80 FR 20013 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Modification To Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 20078 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13382, 13573, and 13582 | |
| 80 FR 20060 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 80 FR 20061 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for the Update of an Information Collection | |
| 80 FR 20015 - Employment and Training Administration | |
| 80 FR 19901 - Proposed Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 20011 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 80 FR 20073 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Capital Distribution | |
| 80 FR 20074 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Subordinated Debt | |
| 80 FR 20075 - Agency Information Collection Requirements; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Release of Non-Public Information | |
| 80 FR 19908 - Proposed Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 19895 - Proposed Establishment of the Lamorinda Viticultural Area | |
| 80 FR 20077 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; International Regulation | |
| 80 FR 20076 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Investment Securities | |
| 80 FR 19991 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 20062 - Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz Usa, LLC | |
| 80 FR 20065 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Maserati North America Inc. | |
| 80 FR 19982 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal) | |
| 80 FR 19883 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, New Orleans, LA | |
| 80 FR 19884 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chef Menteur Pass, Lake Catherine, LA | |
| 80 FR 19992 - National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 19993 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19992 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20015 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Ventilation Plans, Tests and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines [OMB Control No. 1219-0088] | |
| 80 FR 20083 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Seismic Survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska | |
| 80 FR 20064 - Data Modernization Sampling Information | |
| 80 FR 19957 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19966 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 80 FR 20066 - Hazardous Materials: Explosive Approvals-Applicant Contact Information and Compliance With Special Provision 347 | |
| 80 FR 19931 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District | |
| 80 FR 19932 - Revisions to the California SIP, Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control Districts; Permit Exemptions | |
| 80 FR 20001 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 20058 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the ICC Risk Management Framework | |
| 80 FR 20043 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers | |
| 80 FR 20032 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, to List and Trade Options on the MSCI EAFE Index and on the MSCI Emerging Markets Index | |
| 80 FR 20035 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rule 7051 Fees Relating to Pricing for Direct Circuit Connections | |
| 80 FR 20041 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; OneChicago, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Ownership and Control Reports | |
| 80 FR 20053 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and Modifiers | |
| 80 FR 20049 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NY | |
| 80 FR 20047 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Settlement Finality | |
| 80 FR 20038 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of WisdomTree Put Write Strategy Fund Under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) | |
| 80 FR 19985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (3064-0186) | |
| 80 FR 19985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0179, 3064-0185) | |
| 80 FR 19983 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 19984 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 80 FR 20079 - Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC); Nominations | |
| 80 FR 20081 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
| 80 FR 20081 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
| 80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
| 80 FR 20079 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee | |
| 80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
| 80 FR 20079 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
| 80 FR 20080 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee | |
| 80 FR 20014 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
| 80 FR 20013 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comments Requested: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) | |
| 80 FR 20014 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection; Private Industry Feedback Survey | |
| 80 FR 19986 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 19935 - Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standards for the Libby, Montana Nonattainment Area | |
| 80 FR 19876 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 19873 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters | |
| 80 FR 19914 - Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes | |
| 80 FR 19886 - Surety Bond Guarantee Program; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 80 FR 19941 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker | |
| 80 FR 19953 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher | |
| 80 FR 19878 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 19892 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 20115 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures for Consumer and Commercial Water Heaters | |
| 80 FR 19881 - Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes | |
| 80 FR 19871 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a pressurization problem on an airplane during climb-out; a subsequent investigation showed a crack in the fuselage skin. This AD requires require repetitive external eddy current inspections on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, and other defects, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective May 19, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM 116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057 3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0207, dated September 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The MCAI states:
In 2012, a pressurisation problem occurred on an AVRO 146-RJ100 aeroplane during climb-out. Subsequent investigation results identified a 42.87 inch (1089 mm) long crack in the fuselage skin in the rear fuselage drum, near the rear passenger door. The skin crack had initiated in the step of the skin land adjacent to a lap joint. In addition to the skin crack, cracks were found in Frames 41X and 42.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to degradation of the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
Prompted by this finding, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) 53-239, providing instructions to inspect the internal area of the rear fuselage drum for cracks, corrosion and any other defects and EASA issued AD 2012-0178 [
Following the issuance of that [EASA] AD, some new information on additional damage found on the aeroplane that had the pressurisation problem resulted in a further review of the cracking event. This review concluded that the event was more serious than previously considered and that the compliance time must be reduced in order to mitigate the risk of cracking on other aeroplanes. As a result, EASA issued AD 2012-0184 [
After analysing the responses to EASA AD 2012-0184, which covered the initial inspection of stringer 30, left hand (LH) and right hand (RH), BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd also assessed the similar design features at other skin lands in the rear fuselage drum, namely at stringer 2 right and stringers 11 and 18, LH and RH. As a result, they determined that inspections at the other stringers would be required and also that repeat inspections of all these stringers would be necessary. Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd ISB.53-239 Revision 1 and 2 were issued to include these new inspections.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0184, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of additional inspections of the affected fuselage area, including repetitive inspections, and depending on findings, repair of cracked structural items.
The required actions include repetitive external eddy current inspections on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Since we issued the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014), we have received BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. The new service information includes minor editorial changes.
We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to refer to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. We have also revised paragraph (i) of this AD to provide credit for BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 2, dated July 15, 2013.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed,
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 52260, September 3, 2014).
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014. The service information describes an external eddy current inspection on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects, and repair. 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
We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective May 19, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes; and Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of a pressurization problem on an airplane during climb-out; a subsequent investigation showed a crack in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, corrosion, and other defects, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable: Do an external eddy current inspection on the aft skin lap joints of the rear fuselage for cracking, corrosion, and other defects (
(i) For any airplane which has accumulated 9,000 flight cycles or more since the airplane's first flight as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 1,000 flight cycles or 6 months after of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(ii) For any airplane which has accumulated less than 9,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight as the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection before accumulating 10,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight.
(2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable to the airplane's modification status.
(i) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes post modification HCM50070E, or post modification HCM50070F, or post modification HCM50259A, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight cycles.
(ii) For Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes pre-modification HCM50070E, and pre-modification HCM50070F, and pre-modification HCM50259A, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight cycles.
If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of the repair does not constitute a terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action on stringer 30, left hand (LH) and right hand (RH), as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, dated June 13, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 1, dated June 18, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection and corrective action, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, Revision 2, dated July 15, 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 2013-0207, dated September 9, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin 53-239, including Appendix 2, Revision 3, dated May 7, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A119, A109S, AW119 MKII, and AW109SP helicopters, which was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This AD requires inspecting certain tail rotor (T/R) pitch control links (pitch links) for freedom of movement, corrosion, excessive friction of the spherical bearings, and cracks. This AD is prompted by a report of an in-flight failure of a pitch link on an Agusta Model AW119 MKII helicopter. These actions are intended to prevent loss of T/R pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD (EAD) 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 29, 2015.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 15, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at
Martin Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
On March 4, 2015, we issued EAD 2015-05-52, which requires inspecting each pitch link part number (P/N) 109-0130-05-117 with 100 hours or less time-in-service since overhaul for freedom of movement, corrosion, and to determine the force required to rotate the spherical bearings. If there is any corrosion or if the force exceeds a certain amount, then the pitch link is unairworthy. If there is no corrosion and the force does not exceed the amount, then EAD 2015-05-52 requires cleaning and visually inspecting the pitch link rod for a crack. If there is a crack, then the pitch link is unairworthy. EAD 2015-05-52 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters and resulted from a report of an in-flight failure of a pitch link P/N 109-0130-05-117 on an Agusta Model AW119 MKII helicopter.
EAD 2015-05-52 was prompted by EAD No. 2015-0035-E, dated February 27, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A109A, A109AII, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119MKII helicopters. EASA advises of the reported “in-flight breaking” of the T/R pitch control link P/N 109-0130-05-117. EASA EAD 2015-0035-E requires inspecting the T/R pitch control link for corrosion, rotation resistance or binding, and cracks.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing 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 helicopters of these same type designs.
AgustaWestland issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) Nos. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, and 119-072, all revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015. These alert BTs specify inspections of pitch link P/N 109-0130-05-117 for corrosion, freedom of movement, excessive friction of the spherical bearings, and cracks. This information is reasonably available at
This AD retains the requirements of EAD 2015-05-52 and requires inspecting the pitch link for freedom of movement for rotation resistance or binding. This AD also requires removing
We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking.
We estimate that this AD affects 253 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It takes about 2.5 work-hours at $85 per work-hour to perform the inspections, for a total cost of $213 per helicopter and $53,889 for the U.S. operator fleet. If required, replacing a pitch link will cost about $1,957 for parts. We do not anticipate any additional labor costs to install a new pitch link as opposed to re-installing the existing pitch link.
According to AgustaWestland's service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Agusta. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and the initial required action must be accomplished before further flight.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment before issuing this AD were impracticable and contrary to the public interest and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by EAD 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the
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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109K2, A109E, A119, A109S, AW119 MKII, and AW109SP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor pitch control link (pitch link) part number 109-0130-05-117 with 100 hours or less time-in-service since overhaul.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a pitch link. This condition could result in loss of tail rotor pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2015-05-52, issued on March 4, 2015, which contains the requirements of this AD.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, inspect the pitch link for freedom of movement while it is installed on the helicopter.
(i) If there is rotation resistance or binding, before further flight, perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this AD.
(ii) If there is no rotation resistance and no binding, within 5 hours time-in-service, perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this AD.
(2) Remove the pitch link and inspect each pitch link spherical bearing for corrosion. If there is any corrosion, the pitch link is unairworthy.
(3) Determine the force required to rotate each pitch link spherical bearing as depicted in Figure 1 of AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, or 119-072, all Revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015, as applicable to your model helicopter.
(i) If the force required to rotate a spherical bearing in either end of the pitch link is greater than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), the pitch link is unairworthy.
(ii) If the force required to rotate the spherical bearings in both ends of the pitch link is equal to or less than 7.30 N (1.64 pounds force), after cleaning the pitch link rod using aliphatic naphtha or equivalent and a soft non-metallic bristle brush, visually inspect the pitch link rod for a crack in the area depicted in Figure 1 of AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109-145, 109EP-141, 109K-65, 109S-065, 109SP-087, or 119-072, all Revision A, and all dated February 27, 2015, as applicable to your model helicopter, using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass or by dye penetrant inspection. If there is a crack, the pitch link is unairworthy.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2015-0035-E, dated February 27, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Controls.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109-145, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(ii) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109EP-141, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(iii) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109K-65, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(iv) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109S-065, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(v) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 109SP-087, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(vi) AgustaWestland Alert BT No. 119-072, Revision A, dated February 27, 2015.
(3) For AgustaWestland service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-02-04 for certain Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2015-02-04 required installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. This new AD continues to require installing two protective plates between the electrical wiring under the glare shield and the engine fire pull handles. This AD was prompted by our determination that the published version of AD 2015-02-04 incorrectly identified the AD number as “AD 2014-02-04” in a certain paragraph. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 6, 2015 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).
We must receive comments on this AD by May 29, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
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.
On January 12, 2015, we issued AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80
AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), corresponds to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 2014. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Since we issued AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), we have determined that the published version of AD 2015-02-04 incorrectly identified the AD number in the Product Identification line as “AD 2014-02-04.” In order to refer to the correct AD number, this AD replaces “AD 2014-02-04” with “AD 2015-02-04” in the Product Identification line in the regulatory text.
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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the urgency to correct the AD number in the regulatory text to avoid non-compliance. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), and retained in this AD are as follows:
This AD adds no additional economic burden.
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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective April 29, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 5, 7, 27, 30, 34, 36, 78, 132, and 251 through 352 inclusive.
(2) Airplanes with manufacturer serial numbers 2 through 250 inclusive, having Honeywell (formerly Allied Signal, Garrett AiResearch) TFE731-40-1C engines modified by Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F50-280.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical Power.
This AD was prompted by a report of an untimely and intermittent indication of slat activity due to chafing of the electrical wiring under the glare shield and behind the flight deck front panel, and also our determination that the published version of AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), incorrectly identified the AD number as “AD 2014-02-04.” We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the electrical wiring, which could result in a short circuit and generation of smoke in the cockpit, potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-02-04, Amendment 39-18071 (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015), with no changes. Within 74 months after March 6, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-02-04), install two Rilsan protective plates between the glare shield electrical wiring and the engine fire pull handles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0024, dated January 23, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 6, 2015, (80 FR 5034, January 30, 2015).
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-530, dated November 12, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a jettison fuel pump that was shut off by the automatic shutoff system during the center tank fuel scavenge process on a short-range flight and a subsequent failure analysis of the fuel scavenge system. This AD requires making wiring changes, modifying certain power panels, installing electrical load management system 2 (ELMS2) software, and accomplishing a functional test. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended dry running of the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a potential ignition source inside the main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel tank fire or explosion in the event that the jettison pump overheats or has an electrical fault.
This AD is effective May 19, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 19, 2015.
For Boeing 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
For GE Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx stated that it concurs with the proposed requirements specified in NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014).
The Boeing Company (Boeing) requested that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014). Boeing explained that the number of airplanes used in the cost estimate calculations is incorrect. For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, for which hardware and software changes are required, the number of affected U.S. registered airplanes is 9, instead of 7. For Group 5 airplanes, for which an ELMS2 software update is required, the number of affected U.S. registered airplanes is 2, not 4.
We agree with the commenter. We have changed the number of airplanes in the “Costs of Compliance” section of this AD accordingly. We have also used information in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015, to calculate the estimated costs.
Boeing, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and FedEx requested that we revise the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014) to refer to a new revision of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083. Boeing, ANA, and FedEx stated that a revised service bulletin is expected to be sent to the FAA before the release of this AD and that referencing the revised service bulletin would eliminate the need for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) approval of the revised service bulletin.
We agree with the commenters. Boeing has issued Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. This service bulletin was revised to correct wire length and part numbers in wire kits. We have changed this AD to reference Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015, throughout. We have also added paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, and have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition, as described in paragraph (e) of the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014). Boeing stated that the fuel jettison pumps that are the subject of this AD are not a potential fuel tank ignition source because the pumps in question have been qualified to run dry without causing adverse pump operating temperatures for 600 hours. The jettison pump design includes redundant safety features to prevent fuel tank ignition. Boeing also stated that, based on service history and given the number of flight hours accrued by Model 777 airplanes, a conservative analysis shows the chance of a jettison pump running dry and causing a fuel tank ignition is less than extremely improbable.
We disagree to revise the unsafe condition as stated in the Summary and paragraph (e) of this AD. We acknowledge that the fuel jettison pumps in question are properly qualified, and there is no known failure condition that could result in an ignition source. However, based on service experience of various types of fuel pumps, the FAA and industry may be unable to anticipate all of the possible mechanical and electrical failure modes of the fuel pumps that could result in an ignition source. For example, fuel pump qualification tests do not evaluate dry running of a fuel pump with debris ingested. Therefore, we have determined that extended dry running of the fuel jettison pump is a potential ignition source. We have made no changes to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 73252, December 10, 2014).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. The service information describes, among other actions, procedures for making wiring changes to the engine fuel feed system, modifying certain power panels, installing ELMS2 software, and accomplishing a functional test. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see
We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 19, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a report of a jettison fuel pump that was shut off by the automatic shutoff system during the center tank fuel scavenge process on a short-range flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent extended dry running of the jettison fuel pumps, which can be a potential ignition source inside the main fuel tanks, and consequent fuel tank fire or explosion in the event that the jettison pump overheats or has an electrical fault.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, make wiring changes, modify power panels P110 and P210, install electrical load management system 2 (ELMS2) software, and accomplish the functional test and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) For Group 5 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, install ELMS2 software, and accomplish the functional test and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
GE Aviation Service Bulletin 5000ELM-28-075, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2014; and GE Aviation Service Bulletin 6000ELM-28-076, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2014; are additional sources of guidance for modifying the P110 and P210 panels, respectively.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, dated September 8, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(l) 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 the service information contains steps or procedures that are identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps or procedures must be done to comply with this AD; any steps or procedures that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those steps or procedures that are not identified as RC may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in the specified service information without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps or procedures identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps or procedures identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For GE Aviation service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD, contact GE Aviation service information identified in this AD, contact GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0083, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) 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
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the potential for a spring on the air conditioning compressor clutch plate to shear the oil cooler inlet-hose due to the close routing of these parts without a protective cover. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 19, 2015.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 19, 2015.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to an unprotected routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose close to the air conditioning compressor clutch plate.
If a spring on the compressor clutch plate shears it could lead to a damage of the oil hose and the engine oil can spill into the engine bay.
In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires the installation of a cover assembly which will be mounted on the attachment points of the compressor.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 4810, January 29, 2015).
We reviewed PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November 4, 2014. The service information describes actions for installation of a cover assembly (between the compressor clutch plate and the oil hose) to protect the oil hose. This information is reasonably available at
We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,250 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $17,600, or $1,760 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
(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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 19, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes, all serial numbers, that:
(1) have not incorporated the actions of any version of PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-006, which allows for the installation of a different air conditioning compressor mounted at a different location and makes the unsafe condition nonexistent; and
(2) are certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 21: Air Conditioning.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the potential for a spring on the air conditioning compressor clutch plate to shear the oil cooler inlet-hose due to the close routing of these parts without a protective cover. We are issuing this AD to correct the unprotected routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose, which could lead to damage of the oil hose resulting in an engine oil spill into the engine bay.
Unless already done, within the next 120 days after May 19, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), install a cover assembly on the attachment points of the compressor following the Accomplishment Instructions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-2014-008, dated December 9, 2014; and any version of PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-006, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Pilatus PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November 4, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) bascule bridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the Ochsner Ironman 70.3 New Orleans event as they travel across the bridge as part of the bike and run courses.
This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0258] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The Coast Guard received a request for a temporary deviation for the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook) crossing the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 4.6, in New Orleans, Louisiana to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a nine-hour period during the Ochsner Ironman 70.3, on April 19, 2015. The bridge owner also received a request to close the bridge to all traffic during the Ironman event, which was approved. The bridge provides 45 feet in the closed-to-navigation position above mean sea level. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.458(c), the draw of the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon Blvd./Seabrook), mile 4.6, shall open on signal from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; except the bridge need not open from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. From 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. This deviation allows the draw span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015, while the Ironman participants travel across the bridge as part of the race course. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows. As a result of coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. The Coast Guard will inform users through the Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure period. There is an alternate route available via the Rigolets Pass to vessel traffic. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position can do so at any time. For the duration of the
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.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the U.S. Highway 90 swing highway bridge across the Chef Menteur Pass, mile 2.8, at Lake Catherine, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the Ochsner Ironman 70.3 New Orleans event as they travel across the bridge as part of the bike and run courses.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 1 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0259] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Geri Robinson, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard, telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The Coast Guard received a request for a temporary deviation for the U.S. Highway 90 swing bridge crossing the Chef Menteur Pass, mile 2.8, at Lake Catherine, Orleans Parish, Louisiana to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a six-hour period during the Ochsner Ironman 70.3, on April 19, 2015. The bridge owner also received a request to close the bridge to all traffic during the Ironman event, which was approved. The bridge provides 10 feet vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position at mean high water. Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.436, the draw of the U.S. Highway 90 Bridge, mile 2.8, shall open on signal; except that, from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need open only for the passage of vessels. The draw shall open at any time for a vessel in distress. This deviation allows the draw span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sunday, April 19, 2015, while the Ironman participants travel across the bridge as part of the bike and race courses. Navigation on the waterway consists of mainly commercial fishermen and sportsman fishermen. As a result of coordination between the Coast Guard and the waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. The Coast Guard will inform users through the Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the closure period. There is an alternate route available via the Rigolets Pass to vessel traffic. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position can do so at any time. For the duration of the event, the bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, 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.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting and webinar.
This notice announces a meeting of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the
Meeting and Webinar: Thursday, April 30, 2015, 10 a.m.-3 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 4A-104, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. For individuals that wish to attend by webinar, please register at—
John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email:
• Discussion and prioritization of topic areas that ASRAC can assist the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
• Discussion of options to engage the public under DOE's retrospective regulatory review plan
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.
DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.
Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; An Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.
Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they sign up for the Public Comment Period. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number of individuals who wish to speak but will not exceed five minutes. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The co-chairs of the Committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties and to facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. ASRAC invites written comments from all interested parties. Any comments submitted must identify the ASRAC, and provide docket number EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Proposed rule.
This rule proposes to change the regulations for SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program in four areas. First, as a condition for participating in the Prior Approval and Preferred Programs, the proposal would clarify that a Surety must directly employ underwriting and claims staffs sufficient to perform and manage these functions, and final settlement authority for claims and recovery is vested only in salaried employees of the Surety. Second, the proposal would provide that all costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff are ineligible for reimbursement by SBA, but the Surety may seek reimbursement for amounts paid for specialized services that are provided by outside consultants in connection with the processing of a claim. Third, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for determining when a Principal that caused a Loss to SBA is ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA. Fourth, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for admitting Sureties to the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program by increasing the Surety's underwriting limitation, as certified by the U.S. Treasury Department on its list of acceptable sureties, from at least $2 million to at least $6.5 million.
SBA must receive comments to this proposed rule on or before June 15, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG70, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
SBA will post all comments on
Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety Guarantees, (202) 205-6545 or email:
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees bid, payment and performance bonds for small and emerging contractors who cannot obtain surety bonds through regular commercial channels. SBA's guarantee gives Sureties an incentive to provide bonding for small businesses and, thereby, assists small businesses in obtaining greater access to contracting opportunities. SBA's guarantee is an agreement between a Surety and SBA that SBA will assume a certain percentage of the Surety's loss should a contractor default on the underlying contract.
This rule proposes to change the regulations governing SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program (SBG Program) in four areas that have prompted questions from participating Sureties over the past year. First, the rule proposes to clarify that, to participate in the Prior Approval and Preferred Programs, a Surety must directly employ underwriting and claims staffs sufficient to perform and manage these functions. Final settlement authority for claims and recoveries is vested only in the surety's claims staff. The current rules require PSB Sureties to vest final settlement authority for claims and recovery in their salaried employees,
Second, the rule proposes to specify that the costs that the Surety incurs for its salaried claims staff are ineligible for reimbursement by SBA. SBA considers such costs to be integral to the Surety's overhead, which is not eligible for reimbursement by SBA.
Third, the rule proposes to modify the conditions under which a Principal, and its Affiliates, would be deemed ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA in the circumstance where the Principal has previously defaulted on an SBA guaranteed surety bond. Under the current rules, a Principal and its Affiliates are ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees if the Surety has requested reimbursement for Losses
SBA is proposing to modify these rules in two ways. First, the proposed rule would prohibit the reinstatement of a Principal if the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, had previously defaulted on an SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA or if SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments. The proposed rule would provide that the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, may be reinstated only if SBA has been fully repaid for the Loss or for the Imminent Breach payment. In addition, the discharge of the indebtedness in bankruptcy would no longer qualify the Principal for reinstatement. These changes would conform the SBG Program more closely to SBA's other financial assistance programs under which an applicant is ineligible for financial assistance if it has caused a prior loss to the Agency.
Second, the proposed rule would apply the same standards regarding the loss of eligibility and the conditions for reinstatement to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program. SBA believes that the conditions for reinstatement of a Principal's eligibility for SBA guaranteed bonds should not depend upon whether the Surety is a Prior Approval Surety or a PSB Surety, but that the reinstatement conditions should be uniform and apply equally to both Programs.
Fourth, the rule proposes to modify the criteria for admitting a Surety to participate in the Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program by increasing the Surety's underwriting limitation, as certified by the U.S. Treasury Department on its list of acceptable sureties on Federal bonds, from at least $2 million to at least $6.5 million. This change would conform the underwriting limitation to the statutory increase made by Public Law 112-239 in the maximum amount of any Contract or Order for which SBA may guarantee a bond. All PSB Sureties currently participating in the PSB Program would satisfy this new requirement.
SBA is also proposing to apply the same criterion on ineligibility and conditions for reinstatement to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program. As the same conditions for reinstatement would apply to both the Prior Approval Program and the PSB Program, the conditions for reinstatement set forth in 13 CFR 115.36(b) and (c) would be moved in their entirety to 13 CFR 115.14(b) and (c), and the heading of this section would be changed to “Loss of Principal's eligibility for future assistance and reinstatement of Principal”.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule is also not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 800).
In accordance with Executive Order 13563, SBA discussed with several surety companies issues regarding the SGB Program regulations. In particular, SBA discussed the underwriting and claims staffing requirements that sureties must meet in order to participate in SBA's SGB Program. SBA also discussed with these companies the conditions for reimbursement of the costs incurred by their claims staffs. Generally, the sureties responded favorably to SBA's position that changes were necessary to clarify or amend the regulations on these issues.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
SBA has determined that this proposed rule 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. Therefore, for purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, SBA has determined that this proposed rule will not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are 23 Sureties that participate in the SBA program, and no part of this proposed rule would impose any significant additional cost or burden on them. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses criterion anticipated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds.
For the reasons cited above, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 115 as follows:
5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651.
* * * At a minimum, each applicant must have salaried staff that is employed directly (not an agent or other individual or entity under contract with the applicant) to oversee its underwriting function and to perform all claims and recovery functions. Final settlement authority for claims and recovery must be vested only in the applicant's claims staff. The applicant must continue to comply with SBA's standards and procedures for underwriting, administration, claims, recovery, and staffing requirements while participating in SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Programs.
(7)
(4) The Principal, or any of its Affiliates, has defaulted on an SBA-guaranteed bond resulting in a Loss that has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, or SBA has not been fully reimbursed for any Imminent Breach payments.
(b)
(1) A Prior Approval Surety may recommend that such Principal's eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may agree to reinstate the Principal if:
(i) The Surety has settled its claim with the Principal, or any of its Affiliates, for an amount that results in no Loss to SBA or in no amount owed for Imminent Breach payments, or OSG finds good cause for reinstating the Principal notwithstanding the Loss to SBA or amount owed for Imminent Breach payments; or
(ii) OSG and the Surety determine that further bond guarantees are appropriate after the Principal was deemed ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (5) or (6) of section 115.14(a).
(2) A PSB Surety may:
(i) Recommend that such Principal's eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may
(ii) Reinstate a Principal's eligibility upon the Surety's determination that further bond guarantees are appropriate after the Principal was deemed ineligible for further SBA bond guarantees under § 115.14(a) (1), (2), (3), (5) or (6).
(c)
(e) * * *
(1) Amounts actually paid by the Surety for specialized services that are provided under contract by an outside consultant, which is not an Affiliate of the Surety, in connection with the processing of a claim, provided that such services are beyond the capability of the Surety's salaried claims staff; and
(f) * * *
(1) Any unallocated expenses, all direct and indirect costs incurred by the Surety's salaried claims staff, or any clear mark-up on expenses or any overhead of the Surety, its attorney, or any other party hired by the Surety or the attorney;
(2)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Honda Aircraft Company, Model HA-420 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before May 4, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2015-0721] using any of the following methods:
Les Lyne, Policies & Procedures Branch, ACE-114, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4171; facsimile (816) 329-4090.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.
The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.
The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. Therefore, the FAA is proposing this special condition to require that all characteristics of the rechargeable lithium batteries and their installation that could affect safe operation of the HA-420 are addressed, and appropriate Instructions for Continued Airworthiness which include maintenance requirements are established to ensure the availability of electrical power from the batteries when needed.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: The installation of Li-ion batteries.
The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for the application of Li-ion batteries in airborne applications. This type of battery possesses certain failure, operational characteristics, and maintenance requirements that differ significantly from that of the nickel cadmium and lead acid rechargeable batteries currently approved in other normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes.
The applicable parts 21 and 23 airworthiness regulations governing the installation of batteries in general aviation airplanes, including § 23.1353, were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR 3) as part of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery requirements, which are identified in § 23.1353, were a rewording of the CAR requirements that did not add any substantive technical requirements. An increase in incidents involving battery fires and failures that accompanied the increased use of Nickel-Cadmium (Ni-Cad) batteries in aircraft resulted in rulemaking activities on the battery requirements for transport category airplanes. These regulations were incorporated into § 23.1353(f) and (g), which apply only to Ni-Cad battery installations.
The proposed use of Li-ion batteries on the HA-420 airplane has prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of the existing battery regulations with respect to that chemistry. As the result of this review, the FAA has determined that the existing regulations do not adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of Li-ion batteries that could affect safety of the battery installation of the HA-420 airplane electrical power supply.
The introduction of Li-ion batteries into aircraft raises some concern about associated battery/cell monitoring systems and how these may affect utilization of an otherwise “good” battery as an energy source to the electrical system when monitoring components fail. Associated battery/cell monitoring systems (
Li-ion batteries typically have different electrical impedance characteristics than lead-acid or Ni-Cad batteries. Honda Aircraft Company needs to evaluate other components of the aircraft electrical system with respect to these characteristics.
At present, there is very limited experience regarding the use of Li-ion rechargeable batteries in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology range from wireless telephone manufacturers to the electric vehicle industry and have noted significant safety issues regarding the use of these types of batteries, some of which are described in the following paragraphs:
1.
2.
3.
These safety issues experienced by users of lithium batteries raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The intent of the proposed special condition is to establish appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the HA-420 and to ensure, as required by §§ 23.1309 and 23.601, that these battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.
Additionally, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), in a joint effort with the FAA and industry, has released RTCA/DO-311, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable Lithium Battery Systems, which gained much of its text directly from previous Li-ion special conditions. Honda Aircraft Company proposes to use DO-311 as the primary methodology for assuring the battery will perform its intended functions safely as installed in the HA-420 airplane and as the basis for test and qualification of the battery. This Special Condition incorporates applicable portions of DO-311.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
Provisional certification of the HA-420 is currently scheduled for June 2015. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public-comment procedure in several prior instances, specifically special conditions 23-236-SC, 23-247-SC, and 23-249-SC. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's both installation of the system and certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public-comment period to 20 days.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company, HA-420 airplanes.
a. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any probable charging or discharging condition, or during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The applicant must design Li-ion battery installation to preclude explosion or fire in the event of those failures.
b. The applicant must design the Li-ion batteries to preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.
c. No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any Li-ion battery in normal operation or as the result of any failure of the battery charging or monitoring system, or battery installation not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
d. Li-ion batteries that contain flammable fluids must comply with the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 23.863(a) through (d).
e. No corrosive fluids or gasses that may escape from any Li-ion battery may damage surrounding airplane structure or adjacent essential equipment.
f. The applicant must provide provision for each installed Li-ion battery to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
g. Li-ion battery installations must have—
(1) A system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically so as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging; or
(2) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
(3) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.
h. Any Li-ion battery installation whose function is required for safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flightcrew members whenever the capacity and State of Charge (SOC) of the batteries have fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.
i. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) must contain recommended manufacturers maintenance and inspection requirements to ensure that batteries, including single cells, meet a safety function level essential to the aircraft's continued airworthiness.
(1) The ICA must contain operating instructions and equipment limitations in an installation maintenance manual.
(2) The ICA must contain installation procedures and limitations in a maintenance manual, sufficient to ensure that cells or batteries, when installed according to the installation procedures, still meet safety functional levels essential to the aircraft's continued airworthiness. The limitations must identify any unique aspects of the installation.
(3) The ICA must contain corrective maintenance procedures to check battery capacity at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.
(4) The ICA must contain scheduled servicing information to replace batteries at manufacturers recommended replacement time.
(5) The ICA must contain maintenance and inspection requirements to check visually for battery and/or charger degradation.
j. Batteries in a rotating stock (spares) that have experienced degraded charge retention capability or other damage due to prolonged storage must be functionally checked at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.
k. The System Safety Assessment (SSA) process should address the software and complex hardware levels for the sensing, monitoring, and warning systems if these systems contain complex devices. The functional hazard assessment (FHA) for the system is required based on the intended functions described. The criticality of the specific functions will be determined by the safety assessment process for compliance with § 23.1309. Advisory Circular 23-1309-1C contains acceptable means for accomplishing this requirement. For determining the failure condition, the criticality of a function will include the mitigating factors. The failure conditions must address the loss of function and improper operations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-20-27, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 98-20-27 currently requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint; and a follow-on eddy current inspection and repair, if necessary. Since we issued AD 98-20-27, we have received reports of cracking of the wing top skin in an area not required for inspection by AD 98-20-27. This proposed AD would reduce the inspection compliance time and intervals, and extend the inspection area of the wing top skin at the front spar joint. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On September 16, 1998, we issued AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998). AD 98-20-27 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes).
Since we issued AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998): The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0232R1, dated October 2, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:
During full-scale fatigue testing conducted in the early 1990's, cracks were found on the top skin of the wing between Ribs 1 and 7, starting at the front spar fastener holes.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing.
Consequently, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6045 and DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 97-374-238 [
After those [DGAC] ADs were issued, further cracks to the wing top skin were reported by operators, within an area not covered by the existing [DGAC] ADs. To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus revised SB A300-57-6045 to extend the area to be inspected.
In addition, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses were performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have determined that the inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
As the ESG2 exercise is only applicable to A300-600 aeroplanes, A300-600ST aeroplanes are now addressed through new Airbus SB A300-57-9026.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 97-374-238(B) [
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. The service information describes inspection procedures for fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint between ribs 1 and 7. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Unlike the procedures described in the MCAI and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if cracks are detected in the wing top skin at the front spar joint. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with that cracking, any cracked wing top skin at the front spar joint must be repaired before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with the EASA.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 130 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 98-20-27 is $170 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,100, or $170 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 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 29, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of wing top skin in an area not required for inspection by AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the wing top skin at the front spar joint, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98-20-27, Amendment
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), with revised service information. If any cracking is suspected or detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Prior to further flight, perform an eddy current inspection to confirm the findings of the visual inspection, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994, including Appendix 1, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998, including Appendix 1, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. If any cracking is detected during any eddy current inspection, prior to further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (or its delegated agent).
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the wing top skin between ribs one and seven for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 17,100 total flight cycles or 38,400 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles or 2,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles or 49,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,300 flight cycles or 2,800 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at the applicable time and intervals specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have an average flight time (AFT) that is equal to or more than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 5,100 flight cycles or 11,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is less than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 5,500 flight cycles or 8,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(2) For Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have an AFT that is equal to or more than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 6,500 flight cycles or 14,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) For airplanes that have an AFT that is less than one and one-half hours: At intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight cycles or 10,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(1) If any crack in the top skin in the area forward of the front spar attachment is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) If any crack or sign of a crack is found in the top skin at or aft of the spar attachment during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, do an eddy current inspection of the cracks or of the signs of cracking to confirm the findings of the detailed inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013. If there are any cracks at or aft of the spar attachment, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
Accomplishment of any repair required by paragraph (k) this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 10, dated November 13, 2013, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Airbus service bulletins specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, dated March 18, 1993.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 01, dated August 3, 1994.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 02, dated April 21, 1998.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 04, dated January 13, 2002.
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 05, dated June 13, 2003.
(7) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 06, dated January 13, 2005.
(8) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 07, dated August 14, 2008.
(9) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 08, dated June 6, 2011.
(10) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6045, Revision 09, dated May 21, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-20-27, Amendment 39-10793 (63 FR 50981, September 24, 1998), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0232R1, dated October 2, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 29,369-acre “Lamorinda” viticultural area in Contra Costa County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the larger San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the multicounty Central Coast viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by June 15, 2015.
Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G St. NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of the Lamorinda Wine Growers Association, proposing the establishment of the “Lamorinda” AVA. The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located in Contra Costa County, California, and contains the cities of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. The
The proposed AVA contains approximately 29,369 acres and has 46 commercially producing vineyards that cover approximately 139 acres. The petition states that the individual vineyards are small, each covering less than 5 acres, due to the hilly terrain and the largely suburban nature of the region. However, three much larger commercial vineyards covering a total of 130 acres are either in the early development or public review stages. There also are six bonded wineries currently within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA include its topography, soils, geology, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed viticultural area contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Lamorinda AVA and its supporting exhibits, which may be viewed in Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 at Regulations.gov.
The proposed Lamorinda AVA takes its name from a commonly used portmanteau derived from the names of the three cities within the region: Lafayette (“La”), Moraga (“mor”), and Orinda (“inda”). As evidence of the use of the name “Lamorinda” in this region, the petition included a Rand McNally map of the region titled “Lamorinda.” The petition also included a listing of publications, sports clubs, businesses, and organizations within the proposed AVA that use the name “Lamorinda.” For example, a biweekly newspaper entitled
The proposed Lamorinda AVA is comprised of hilly-to-mountainous terrain and occupies an area described in the petition as suburban. Elevations range from approximately 220 feet along Las Trampas Creek, which runs through the city of Lafayette in the eastern portion of the proposed AVA, to a 2,024-foot peak on Rocky Ridge in the southeastern corner of the proposed AVA.
The eastern boundary of the proposed Lamorinda AVA follows a series of straight lines drawn along the ridgeline that separates the city of Walnut Creek, which lies just outside the boundary, from the city of Lafayette. The proposed eastern boundary also separates the hilly terrain of the proposed AVA from the flatter, lower elevations of the Ygnacio Valley and the San Ramon Valley. The proposed southern boundary follows a series of straight lines drawn between peaks to separate the proposed AVA from the more rugged, mountainous terrain to the south. The proposed western boundary follows a series of lines drawn between mountain peaks to follow the Gudde Ridge, which separates the proposed AVA from the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Highlands, both of which lie west of the proposed AVA. West of the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Highlands, the land slopes sharply towards the flatter, lower terrain surrounding San Leandro Bay and San Francisco Bay. The proposed northern boundary follows a portion of the corporate boundary line of the city of Orinda and a series of straight lines drawn between unnamed peaks whose elevations are marked on the USGS maps. The proposed boundary separates the proposed AVA from the lower, slightly cooler region surrounding the Briones Reservoir, the San Pablo Reservoir, and Suisun Bay, which all lie just north of the proposed AVA.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA include its topography, soils, geology, and climate.
The proposed Lamorinda AVA is characterized by hilly-to-mountainous terrain, with a number of moderate-to-steep slopes throughout the region. Valleys within the proposed AVA tend to be very narrow. The high ridgelines that form the northern and western boundaries of the proposed AVA limit the amount of cool marine air that enters the region, giving the proposed AVA a warmer climate than the regions to the north and west.
According to the petition, the hilly terrain of the proposed AVA affects viticulture. All vineyards within the proposed AVA are located on hillsides because the valley floors are too narrow for commercial viticulture. Because of the steepness of the hillsides, machinery cannot be used safely in the vineyards. Therefore, all vineyard work, including harvesting, must be done by hand. The inability to use machinery keeps the vineyards small. The steep hillsides also promote airflow within the vineyards, which dries and cools the vines and reduces the risk of mildew. Finally, the hilly terrain is suitable for growing both cool- and warm-climate varietals, sometimes within the same vineyard. As an example of cool- and warm-climate grapes growing in the same vineyard, the petition cites the Captain Vineyards in Moraga, which grows both Pinot Noir and Cabernet Sauvignon. The steepness of the vineyard means vines planted on the lower portions of the hillsides receive less sunlight, making the temperature cool enough to grow cool-climate grapes such as Pinot Noir. By contrast, the hilltops receive more sunlight, which raises the temperature enough to grow warm-climate grapes such as Cabernet Sauvignon.
The hilly-to-mountainous topography of the proposed Lamorinda AVA contrasts with the terrain of the surrounding regions. To the north, the terrain becomes flatter as the land slopes down towards Suisun Bay. To the immediate east of the proposed AVA are the Ygnacio Valley and San Ramon Valley, which both have flatter terrain than the proposed AVA. To the immediate south of the proposed AVA, the topography is more mountainous and rugged than within the proposed AVA. To the west, the Berkeley Hills and Oakland Hills give way to the flat coastal terrain along San Leandro Bay and San Francisco Bay.
In addition to having a distinctive topography, the proposed Lamorinda AVA also has a suburban land use pattern that is distinct from many other AVAs. According to the petition, 79.5 percent of the proposed AVA is located within the city limits of Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda. However, the petition also notes that the proposed AVA has semi-rural characteristics, with homes on large lots and a low population density. As a result, property owners often have room to plant vineyards that are large enough to allow for commercial viticulture. The petition states that the areas to the immediate east and west of the proposed AVA are more urban than the proposed AVA, with higher population densities and land that is subdivided into much smaller lots than the land within the proposed Lamorinda AVA. Therefore,
According to a geological report included with the petition as Exhibit B, the soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are classified as mollisols and vertisols. Mollisols are soils that are high in organic material and calcium and are common in areas where grass is the predominant native vegetation. Vertisols, the predominant soils in the proposed AVA, have high levels of clay and are known to shrink and form deep cracks during dry periods. The high clay content in the soils of the proposed AVA is attributable to the weathering of the clay-rich Orinda Formation that underlies the region.
The most prevalent soil series within the proposed AVA are Los Osos clay loam, Lodo clay loam, Alo clay, Sehorn clay, and Altamont-Fontana Complex. Clay-rich soils such as these typically have high water-holding capacities, which can reduce the sugar content of the grapes and increase the risk of diseases and rot in vineyards. However, the soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA have lower than expected water-holding capacities because the thinness of the soils, the steepness of the terrain, and the presence of sand in the soils all allow for the rapid runoff of excess water. The thinness of the soils also has the added effect of preventing the vines from growing too vigorously.
The soils of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are distinctive from the soils in the surrounding regions. The soils to the west, south, and southeast of the proposed AVA are formed from a combination of sedimentary and volcanic materials. To the north of the proposed Lamorinda AVA, the soils along the Suisun Bay are fine-grained bay mud, which is unsuitable for viticulture due to its high water-holding capacity. To the east in the Ygnacio Valley, the soils are deeper, coarser alluvial deposits.
The dominant geological formation of the proposed AVA is the Orinda Formation. Other major geological formations within the proposed AVA include the Briones Formation and the Mulholland Formation. All three of these underlying geological formations contain large amounts of sedimentary rocks, including sandstone. Other sedimentary rocks present within these formations include shale, which is common in the Mulholland Formation, and claystone casts, which are present in large numbers in the Orinda Formation.
The proposed Lamorinda AVA is bordered by two major faults. The Hayward Fault lies to the west of the proposed AVA and passes through the cities of Oakland and Berkeley. The Calaveras Fault runs east of the proposed AVA and through the city of Walnut Creek. The two faults angle toward each other and merge south of the proposed AVA. Millions of years ago, seismic activity in the Hayward Fault led to the uplifting of the Berkeley Hills and the formation of a restricted marine basin in the region of the proposed AVA. A restricted marine basin is a body of saltwater or brackish water that has more water flowing into the basin than out of it, due to the surrounding topography. Fine materials weathering from the Berkeley Hills, to the west, and the foothills of Mount Diablo, to the southeast, settled in this basin and led to the creation of the Orinda Formation. Eventually, the basin was completely restricted and became a shallow lake. The deposition of weathered material into this shallow lake created the Mulholland Formation. Over time, seismic activity along the Hayward Fault and the Calaveras Fault uplifted the bottom of the shallow lake, draining the lake and forming the hilly terrain that is characteristic of the proposed Lamorinda AVA.
To the east of the proposed Lamorinda AVA, the dominant geological formation is the Tassajara-Green Valley Formation, which consists of mudstone, sandstone, and small amounts of volcanic material. To the south of the proposed AVA, the Orinda, Briones, and Mulholland Formations continue to dominate, eventually giving way to the Forearc Assemblage. To the west, the dominant geologic formations are the Forearc Assemblage, the Franciscan Formation, and the Great Valley Ophiolite, along with the Moraga Formation and Siesta Formation. To the north, the Briones and Monterey Formations dominate and eventually give way to Forearc Assemblage.
The geology of the proposed Lamorinda AVA affects viticulture indirectly through its role in forming the terrain and soils of the region. Erosion of the Orinda Formation led to the formation of the proposed AVA's clay-rich soils with high water-holding capacities. The uplifting of the floor of the ancient lake created the steep, hilly terrain of the proposed AVA. The steepness of the hills provides good drainage and limits the depth of the soils, both of which help mitigate the high water-holding capacity of the soils in the proposed AVA. Finally, the hills of the proposed AVA allow for good airflow in vineyards and provide a variety of slope aspects that are suitable for growing a wide variety of grapes.
Ridgelines shelter the proposed Lamorinda AVA from much of the diurnal fog and cool marine air moving inland from San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. While some marine air enters the proposed AVA through narrow creek valleys and wind gaps, the region is less exposed to the cool air as the regions along the bays. Additionally, the small amount of daytime fog that enters the proposed AVA is thin and burns off quickly, unlike the heavier, longer-lasting fog of the coastal areas. As a result, the proposed AVA receives more sunlight and has generally warmer temperatures than the surrounding regions, except for the regions farther inland, which receive very little, if any, marine air and fog. The proposed AVA does receive some nocturnal fog, although the petition states that nocturnal fog has a different effect on temperatures than diurnal fog. Diurnal fog usually lowers daytime temperatures by blocking the sunlight. By contrast, nocturnal fog has a modest warming effect on nighttime temperatures. When the heat that has been absorbed by soil during the day is released back into the air at night, nocturnal fog acts as a blanket, trapping the heat closer to the ground and preventing it from dissipating.
The petition included annual growing degree day (GDD)
The data
The warm temperatures, high GDD accumulations, and lack of diurnal fog in the proposed Lamorinda AVA have an effect on viticulture. Slower-maturing varieties of grapes have ample time to ripen because the warm temperatures and plentiful sunlight allow for long days of photosynthesis. By contrast, slower-maturing varieties of grapes are less likely to ripen successfully in the cooler, foggier regions to the north, south, and west of the proposed AVA because lower temperatures and lower levels of sunlight interrupt photosynthesis.
In summary, the evidence provided in the petition indicates that the geographic features of the proposed Lamorinda AVA are distinguishable from those of the surrounding regions. The terrain of the proposed AVA is moderate-to-steep hills, which contrasts with the steeper, more rugged terrain to the south and west and the lower, flatter plains to the north and east. The soils of the proposed AVA are high in clay, whereas volcanic materials are present in the soils to the south and west and alluvial deposits are prominent to the north and east. The dominant geological formation of the proposed Lamorinda AVA is the Orinda Formation, whereas the Tassajara-Green Valley Formation is prominent to the east and the Forearc Assemblage dominates the regions to the north, west, and south. Finally, the surrounding regions are more exposed to marine air and fog and have lower GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA.
The San Francisco Bay AVA was established by T.D. ATF-407, which was published in the
The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay AVA and shares some broad characteristics of the larger San Francisco Bay AVA. While the proposed Lamorinda AVA receives some marine air that enters the region through stream valleys and wind gaps, much of the cooling air is blocked by the higher elevations that surround the proposed AVA to the north, west, and south. The proposed AVA also experiences some light nocturnal marine fog, but the heavy diurnal fog that characterizes the more coastal portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA seldom occurs.
The large, 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-216, which was published in the
The proposed Lamorinda AVA is located within the Central Coast AVA and, like the larger AVA, experiences mild marine breezes and nocturnal marine fog. However, due to its much smaller size, the proposed AVA has greater uniformity in geographical features such as topography, temperature, and soils, than the larger, multicounty Central Coast AVA.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 29,369-acre Lamorinda AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Lamorinda,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Lamorinda” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Lamorinda AVA would not affect any existing viticultural area, and any bottlers using “San Francisco Bay” or “Central Coast” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the San Francisco Bay or Central Coast AVAs would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Lamorinda AVA would allow vintners to use “Lamorinda,” “San Francisco Bay,” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Lamorinda AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Lamorinda AVA's location within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. TTB also is interested in comments whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs that the proposed Lamorinda AVA should no longer be part of those AVAs. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Lamorinda AVA on wine labels that include the term “Lamorinda” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB also is interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 151 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0007 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if
You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Walnut Creek, CA, 1995;
(2) Las Trampas Ridge, CA, 1995;
(3) Oakland East, CA, 1997; and
(4) Briones Valley, CA, 1995.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on Walnut Creek map at the water tank (known locally as the Withers Reservoir) at the end of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Kim Road, in the Cañada del Hambre Y Las Bolsas Land Grant.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 833-foot peak marked “Hump 2;” then
(3) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to the marked 781-foot peak south of the shared Lafayette-Walnut Creek corporate boundary line and north of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Peaceful Lane; then
(4) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.3 mile to the marked 610-foot peak southwest of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Secluded Place; then
(5) Proceed south-southwest in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles to an unidentified benchmark at the end of an unnamed unimproved road known locally as Diablo Oaks Way in section 33, T1N/R2W; then
(6) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Las Trampas map, and continuing another 0.9 mile to the substation at the southeast corner of section 4, T1S/R2W; then
(7) Proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 2.3 miles to the 1,827-foot summit of Las Trampas Peak, section 22, T1S/R2W; then
(8) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.1 miles to the 2,024-foot benchmark marked “Rock 2” in section 26, T1S/R2W; then
(9) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to the marked 1,057-foot peak in section 29, T1S/R2W; then
(10) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 2 miles to the intersection of the 1,000-foot elevation line with the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 31, T1S/R2W; then
(11) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.4 mile, crossing onto the Oakland East map, then continuing another 0.1 mile to the 1,121-foot peak in section 30, T1S/R2W; then
(12) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 3.6 miles to the 1,301-foot peak in section 15, T1S/R3W; then
(13) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.6 miles to the 1,634-foot peak in section 9, T1S/R3W; then
(14) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 2.2 miles to the communication tower on the Contra Costa-Alameda County line in section 5, T1S/R3W; then
(15) Proceed north in a straight line approximately 0.1 mile, crossing onto the Briones Valley map, then continuing another 0.6 mile to the 1,905-foot summit of Vollmer Peak in the El Sobrante Land Grant; then
(16) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line approximately 3 miles, crossing over to the 1,027-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant, to the Orinda corporate boundary line; then
(17) Proceed generally east along the Orinda corporate boundary line approximately 3.3 miles to the water tank at the 1,142-foot elevation in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then
(18) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 1.2 miles to the 1,357-foot benchmark marked “Russell” in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then
(19) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 1,405-foot peak in the Boca de la Cañada del Pinole Land Grant; then
(20) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Walnut Creek map, then continuing another 1.1 miles to the beginning point.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 306,650-acre “Lewis-Clark Valley” viticultural area in portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater and Latah Counties in Idaho and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in Washington. TTB also proposes to modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley viticultural area to eliminate a potential overlap with the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area. The proposed boundary modifications would decrease the size of the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley viticultural area by approximately 57,020 acres. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
TTB must receive your comments on or before June 15, 2015.
Please send your comments on this proposal to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this document for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth the standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA.
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
Petitions to modify the boundary of an existing AVA which would result in a decrease in the size of an existing AVA must include the following:
• An explanation of the extent to which the current AVA name does not apply to the excluded area;
• An explanation of how the distinguishing features of the excluded area are different from those within the boundary of the smaller AVA; and
• An explanation of how the boundary of the existing AVA was incorrectly or incompletely defined or is no longer accurate due to new evidence or changed circumstances.
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist and founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Palouse-Lewis Clark Valley Wine Alliance and the Clearwater Economic Development Association. The petition proposed to establish the “Lewis-Clark Valley” AVA and to modify the boundary of the existing “Columbia Valley” AVA (27 CFR 9.74).
The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA contains approximately 306,650 acres and has 3 bonded wineries, as well as 16 vineyards containing more than 81 acres of grapes distributed across the proposed AVA. According to the petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes are expected to be planted in the next few years. The distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area include its climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data contained in the sections below are from the petition to establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the established Columbia Valley AVA.
A small portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA overlaps the southeastern corner of the established Columbia Valley AVA. The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA does not overlap any other established AVA. To eliminate the potential overlap, the petitioner proposed to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA so that the overlapping area would be solely within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The proposed modifications would reduce the size of the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley AVA boundary by approximately 57,020 acres. One vineyard, Arnett Vineyard, currently exists within the area of the proposed boundary modification. The vineyard owners have provided TTB with a letter supporting the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed modification of the Columbia Valley AVA boundary.
The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA derives its name from the two principle towns within the proposed AVA: Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Washington. The two towns, which face each other across the Snake River, were named in honor of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, who traveled through the region of the proposed AVA during their famous expedition of 1804-1806. The petition included examples of schools, businesses, and organizations within the proposed AVA that bear the names of Lewis and Clark, including Lewis-Clark State College, Lewis-Clark Terminal at the Port of Clarkston, Lewis-Clark Moose Lodge 75, Lewis-Clark Metropolitan Appliance and TV Repair, Lewis-Clark Credit Union, Lewis-Clark Dental Clinic, and Lewis-Clark Auto Sales.
The petition also included evidence that the region of the proposed AVA is known as the “Lewis-Clark Valley.” For example, the Wikipedia entry for “Clarkston, Washington” states that the town is located “in the Lewis-Clark Valley at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers.”
The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA consists mostly of canyon walls, low plateaus, and bench lands formed by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. Approximately 98 percent of the proposed AVA's boundary follows the 600-meter elevation line, and all the land within the proposed AVA is below that elevation. The 600-meter elevation line was chosen because grapes do not reliably ripen annually above that elevation and, above that altitude, temperatures fall low enough to kill the varieties of
The regions outside the proposed AVA generally have higher elevations and colder temperatures than the proposed AVA. To the north of the proposed AVA is the high prairie region known as the Palouse. The heavily forested Bitterroot Mountains are located to the east of the proposed AVA boundary. The proposed southern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the Craig Mountains and from Hells Gate State Park, which is not available for commercial viticulture due to its protected status as an Idaho State park. Additionally, the southern boundary was drawn to prevent the proposed AVA from extending into Oregon, which is less than 5 miles from the southernmost proposed AVA boundary but is not considered to be part of the geographical region known as the Lewis-Clark Valley. To the west and southwest of the proposed AVA are the Blue Mountains.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA include its climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils.
According to the petition, the average annual temperatures and GDD accumulation that the proposed AVA experiences are within the range required for many varieties of wine grapes to ripen reliably, including Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Grenache, Malbec, Pinot noir, Syrah, Pinot gris, Riesling, and Zinfandel, all of which are grown within the proposed AVA. By contrast, annual temperatures and GDD accumulations that the surrounding regions experience are too cold to support most viticulture, particularly varieties of
The petition also included the Cool-Climate Viticulture Suitability Index (CCVSI) statistics that were available from the two weather stations located within the proposed AVA and the station in Moscow, Idaho. The CCVSI is the number of days between the last spring temperature below 29 degrees Fahrenheit and the first fall temperature below 29 degrees Fahrenheit. Within the proposed AVA, the CCVSI for the Lewiston Nez Perce station was 234.2 and the CCVSI for the Dworshak Fish Hatchery was 225.2. By contrast, the CCVSI for the Moscow station was 159.5, which means the region north of the proposed AVA has a growing season that is approximately 2 months shorter than that of the proposed AVA. The significantly shorter growing season in the Palouse region does not allow sufficient time for wine grapes to ripen reliably, particularly the varieties of
The proposed AVA's location to the east of the Blue Mountains is the primary factor behind its low precipitation amounts. The Blue Mountains, which rise to elevations over 6,000 feet, intercept storms carried on the westerly jet stream and prevent them from entering the proposed AVA. Most of the annual precipitation within the proposed AVA occurs between November and May, and the region experiences a prolonged summer drought. One viticultural benefit of summer droughts is that grape growers do not have to be concerned about excessive water damaging the roots of the vines. Although growing season precipitation amounts are very small, the petition states that viticulture is able to thrive within the proposed AVA because the winter rains are sufficient to “fill the soil profile,” assuring adequate amounts of soil moisture necessary for bud break and fruit set early in the growing season. By mid-June, the soil is dry enough to induce mild water stress on the vines and slow the growth of canes and leaves, allowing the vines to put their energy into fruit production. Vineyard managers can then control the amount of water added to the soil via drip irrigation, ensuring that the vines receive enough water to survive but not so much as to promote overly vigorous cane or leaf growth or root rot.
The topography of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA includes bench lands, low plateaus, and steeply sloping canyon walls. Although the proposed AVA is often referred to as a “valley” because its elevations are lower than those of the surrounding regions, the landscape has been cut into such steep and deep V-notched canyons by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers and their tributaries that almost none of the AVA consists of the broad floodplains typically associated with valley floors. According to the petition, the lack of floodplains within the proposed AVA is beneficial to viticulture because floodplains often have high water tables that limit vine root depth. Floodplains are also susceptible to cold-air pooling that can damage new growth and delay fruit maturation.
Elevations within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA range from approximately 740 feet along the Snake and Clearwater Rivers to approximately 1,970 feet along most of the proposed AVA's boundary. The average elevation within the proposed AVA is 1,200 feet. According to a table included in the
The topography of the surrounding regions is different from that of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. To the north, the Palouse is dominated by rounded, gently rolling hills and elevations ranging from approximately 1,000 feet to 2,800 feet, with an average elevation of 2,200 feet. To the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA are high, rugged mountains cut by deep canyons. Elevations in the Bitterroot Mountains, east of the proposed AVA, range from 3,000 feet to 10,150 feet and average approximately 6,000 feet. To the south, the Craig Mountains range from 2,500 feet to over 5,100 feet and average approximately 3,000 feet. To the west and southwest, the Blue Mountains range from 2,500 feet to over 6,300 feet with an average elevation of approximately 4,000 feet.
The native vegetation of the canyon walls, plateaus, terraces, and benches of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA consists of low shrubs and perennial grasses that have deep masses of fine roots. Although some portions of the eastern half of the proposed AVA are sparsely forested, the understory of the forested regions is covered with perennial grasses. The petition states that the decomposition of the grasses and their roots over the years has contributed to the formation of nutrient-rich soils within the proposed AVA that are high in the organic materials that promote healthy vine growth.
Likewise, to the north of the proposed AVA, the native vegetation of the Palouse consists primarily of perennial grasses. However, most of the native vegetation of the Palouse was cleared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for large-scale agricultural purposes, such as wheat production, which continue to this day. To the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA, the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains are covered with conifer forests. The understories of these conifer forests are typically covered with pine needle litter instead of perennial grasses. The pine needle litter remains on the surface of the soil, unlike the root masses of perennial grasses. Therefore, the organic material released by the decaying pine needle litter does not mix as deeply into the soil as the material released by decaying grass roots. As a result, the soils of the mountainous regions are not as high in organic material and nutrients as the soils within the proposed AVA.
There are approximately 88 different soil types within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. However, approximately 95 percent of the soil types within the proposed AVA belong to the Mollisols soil order. Soils from this order are comprised primarily of decomposed perennial grasses and grass roots and contain a high level of organic matter in the form of humus. The humus accumulates within the soil, rather than just in a layer on top of the soil, due to the decomposition of the dense masses of grass roots. The high levels of organic matter in the soils provide an ample supply of nutrients for vineyards. Most of the cultivated Mollisols soils within the proposed AVA also contain loess, which is comprised of fine-grained particles of nutrient-rich silt that were deposited by wind.
The soils within the proposed AVA are generally thin, having been eroded over the years by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers and their tributaries. As a result, the soils average less than 6 feet in depth before reaching a restrictive subsurface, such as bedrock. The shallowness of the soils limits the depths of roots and prevents overly vigorous cane and leaf development.
According to the petition, the Mollisols soils within the proposed AVA have the highest available water holding capacity (AWC) of any known soil texture class. AWC is the ability of soil to store rainfall and irrigation water. The soils within the proposed AVA can store approximately 2.4 inches of water per foot of soil. In regions that receive high amounts of annual rainfall, soils with high AWC may not be suitable for viticulture because excessive amounts of stored water promote root rot, mildew, and fungal diseases. However, because the proposed AVA has very low annual rainfall amounts and receives most of its rainfall outside the growing season, the amount of water stored in the soil is not excessive and does not pose a risk to the health of the vines.
The soils of the surrounding regions differ from those of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. To the north, the soils of the Palouse are also loess-derived Mollisols, but the soils reach depths of up to 12 feet, which is much deeper than the soil depth of the proposed AVA. In the mountainous regions to the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA, the soils also are deeper than within the proposed AVA. Even though the surrounding mountain slopes are steep, the soils have not eroded like the soils of the proposed AVA because the dense conifer forests have held much of the soil in place. Soils in the regions to the east, south, west, and southwest of the proposed AVA are mostly of the Andisols order and are derived from volcanic ash and other material produced by volcanic eruptions. Unlike the Mollisols of the proposed AVA, Andisols soils contain only small amounts of organic matter because the humus is derived from the decomposition of leaf litter resting on the soil's surface, rather than from masses of grass roots decomposing deep within the soil.
In summary, the climate, topography, native vegetation, and soils of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA distinguish it from the surrounding areas. In all directions outside the proposed AVA, the temperatures are cooler, the growing degree day accumulations are smaller, rainfall is higher, and the elevations are higher. The steep canyon walls, plateaus, and bench lands of the proposed AVA are different from the rounded, rolling hills of the Palouse region to the north and the rugged Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue Mountains that surround the proposed AVA to the east, south, and west. Perennial grasses and shrubs are the primary vegetation within the proposed AVA, whereas the majority of the native vegetation to the north of the proposed AVA has been cleared for agricultural purposes, and the regions to the east, south, and west are covered with coniferous forests. Finally, the soils of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are thin, loess-derived Mollisols soils, which are shallower than the Mollisols soils of the Palouse region to the north and distinct from the volcanic Andisols soils found to the east, south, and west.
As previously noted, the petitioner requested a modification of the boundary of the established Columbia Valley AVA. The Columbia Valley AVA is located in central and eastern Washington and northern Oregon. The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA spans the Idaho-Washington border and, as proposed, would partially overlap the southeastern corner of the Columbia Valley AVA near the communities of Clarkston, Vineland, and Asotin, Washington. The proposed boundary modifications would reduce the size of
If the boundary modification is approved, the area of the potential overlap would be included exclusively within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. Wines produced primarily from grapes grown within the removed region would no longer be eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” appellation. There is currently one vineyard, Arnett Vineyard, within the region of the proposed boundary modification. The petition included a letter of support from the owners of that vineyard, stating their support for the proposed Columbia Valley AVA boundary modification and the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
The 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-190, which was published in the
T.D. ATF-190 made no comparisons of the Columbia Valley AVA to the area identified in this proposed rule as the Idaho portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
The region of the proposed boundary modification is located in the southeastern portion of the Columbia River Valley AVA, along the Snake River and near the towns of Clarkson, Vineland, and Asotin, Washington. The petition emphasizes that the region proposed to be removed from the Columbia Valley AVA (hereinafter referred to as the proposed realignment area) has topography and soils that are more similar to those of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA than to those of the existing AVA.
The topography of the proposed realignment area is consistent with that of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The average elevation of both the proposed realignment area and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is 1,200 feet, which is higher than the Columbia Valley AVA's average elevation of 700 feet. The proposed realignment area, like the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, consists of steep, V-shaped canyons, low plateaus, and bench lands along the Snake River and its tributaries. By contrast, the majority of the Columbia Valley AVA is a broad basin with a gently rolling surface. The petition notes that the Columbia River Valley AVA contains rugged, canyon-like coulees and broad, flat-floored “channeled scablands.” However, the coulees and scablands were created by cataclysmic glacial floods from the ancient Lake Missoula, whereas the canyon of the proposed realignment area and the proposed AVA was carved over time by the flow of the Snake River. The coulees and scablands also are generally shallower and have broad, flat floors, as compared to the deep, steeply-sloped V-shaped canyons and narrow valley floors of the proposed realignment area and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
The soils of the proposed realignment area also are different from the soils of the Columbia Valley AVA. Within the proposed realignment area, most of the soils are from the Mollisols order, as are the soils within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. By contrast, approximately 80 percent of Columbia Valley AVA soils are Aridisols and Entisols. Aridisols and Entisols soils generally contain less than 1 percent organic matter, compared to the humus-rich soils of the Mollisols order. Aridisols and Entisols soils also generally have lower water-holding capacities due to their coarse or gravelly textures, whereas the loamy Mollisols soils of both the proposed realignment area and proposed AVA have greater water-holding capacities. Finally, Aridisols and Entisols soils are generally alkaline, compared to the slightly acidic Mollisols soils. Although the petition states that some Mollisols soils exist within the Columbia Valley AVA, they generally occur at high elevations that are too cold to support
In addition to the physical features that distinguish the proposed realignment area from the Columbia Valley AVA and unite it with the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, the petition included evidence that the proposed realignment area is strongly associated with the name “Lewis-Clark Valley,” rather than the “Columbia Valley” name. For example, three of the businesses in the “Name Evidence” section of this proposed rule (the Lewis-Clark Terminal, Lewis-Clark Credit Union, and Lewis-Clark Dental Clinic) are located within the proposed realignment area. Additionally, all of the organizations listed in the “Name Evidence” section serve residents of the proposed AVA as well as the proposed realignment area, further demonstrating that the proposed realignment area is strongly associated with the region known as the Lewis-Clark Valley.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 306,650-acre “Lewis-Clark Valley” American viticultural area and to concurrently modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document.
TTB is proposing the establishment of the new viticultural area and the modification of the existing AVA as one action. Accordingly, if TTB establishes the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, then the proposed boundary modification of the Columbia Valley AVA would be approved concurrently. If TTB does not establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, then the present Columbia Valley AVA boundary would not be modified as proposed in this document.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA and the boundary modification of the established AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and TTB lists them below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If TTB establishes this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Lewis-Clark Valley,” would be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point.
If this proposed regulatory text is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using “Lewis-Clark Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA's full name “Lewis-Clark Valley” as an appellation of origin. If approved, the establishment of the proposed Lewis-
If the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the corresponding modification of the Columbia Valley AVA boundary are approved, bottlers currently using “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin for wine produced primarily from grapes grown in the area removed from the Columbia Valley AVA would no longer be able to use “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin, but could use the term “Lewis-Clark Valley” in the brand name if otherwise eligible. See the “Transition Period” section of this document for more details.
Bottlers currently using “Columbia Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wine produced from grapes grown within the current, and if modified, Columbia Valley AVA would still be eligible to use the term as an appellation of origin or in a brand name.
If the proposals to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA are adopted as a final rule, a transition rule will apply to labels for wines produced from grapes grown in the area removed from the Columbia Valley AVA. A label containing the words “Columbia Valley” in the brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used on wine bottled within two years from the effective date of the final rule, provided that such label was approved prior to the effective date of the final rule and that the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition period, if a wine is no longer eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” AVA name (
TTB notes that wine eligible for labeling with the “Columbia Valley” AVA name under the proposed new boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA will not be affected by this two-year transition period. Furthermore, if TTB does not approve the proposed boundary modification, then all wine label holders currently eligible to use the “Columbia Valley” AVA name would be allowed to continue to use their labels as originally approved.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether TTB should establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and concurrently modify the boundary of the established Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climate, topography, soils, and other required information submitted in support of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
TTB also invites comments on the proposed modification of the existing Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is especially interested in comments on whether the evidence provided sufficiently differentiates the proposed realignment area from the existing Columbia Valley AVA. Comments should address the name usage, boundaries, climate, topography, soils, and any other pertinent information that supports or opposes the proposed boundary modification.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA on wine labels that include the term “Lewis-Clark Valley,” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB also is interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 149 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You also may write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0005 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You also may obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(b)
(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; British Columbia, Canada, edition of 1955, limited revision 1963;
(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 1954, limited revision 1963;
(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1954, revised 1973;
(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, edition of 1953, revised 1974;
(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale, edition of 1981;
(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 1953, limited revision 1965;
(7) The Dales, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1953, revised 1971;
(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, edition of 1953, limited revision 1963;
(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 1957, revised 1971; and
(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 1958, revised 1971.
(c) * * *
(38) Then south following the Washington-Idaho State boundary on the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon map to the 600-meter elevation contour along the eastern boundary of section 9, R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally west following the meandering 600-meter contour to the eastern boundary of section 17, R. 45E./T. 11N.; then south following the eastern boundary of section 17 to the southern boundary of section 17; and then west following the southern boundaries of sections 17 and 18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;
(39) Then south following the Garfield-Asotin county line to the 600-meter elevation contour; then following generally west and south in a counterclockwise direction along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./T. 9 N.; and then west following Charley Creek on to the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E.;
(40) Then north following the township line between R. 42 E. and R. 43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale “Pullman, Washington, Idaho” map to Washington Highway 128 at Peola;
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon, 1981;
(2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981; and
(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is located on the Clarkston map in Washington State along the Garfield-Asotin County line at the southwest corner of section 18, T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, proceed east along the southern
(2) Proceed north along the eastern boundary line of section 17 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(3) Proceed generally east-northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing into Idaho and onto the Orofino map, then continue to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Clarkston maps and finally onto the Potlatch map, and then continuing to follow the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction to the elevation contour's intersection with the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1W, on the Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation boundary and west of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) in Clearwater County, Idaho; then
(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater River) by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1E, to the southeastern corner of section 1; then by proceeding north along the eastern boundary line of section 1 to the southwest corner of section 6, T37N/R2E; and then by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section 6 to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(5) Proceed generally east initially, then generally south, and then generally southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Orofino map, and then continuing to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Potlatch maps, to the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino map in Clearwater County, Idaho; then
(6) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the southeastern corner of section 13, T35N/R2E, northeast of Lolo Creek; then
(7) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 13, T35N/R2E, to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in the middle of Lolo Creek; then
(8) Proceed generally west-northwest along the Clearwater-Idaho County line (concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the Lewis County line at the confluence of Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; then
(9) Proceed generally south along the Lewis-Idaho County line (concurrent with the Clearwater River) to the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E; then
(10) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(11) Proceed generally northwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour, crossing onto the Potlatch map and then back onto the Orofino map and continuing generally southwest along the 600-meter elevation contour to the common T32N/T31N township boundary line along the southern boundary line of section 35, T32N/R5W, south of Chimney Creek (a tributary of the Snake River) in Nez Perce County, Idaho; then
(12) Proceed west along the common T32N/T31N township boundary line, crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho-Washington State line (concurrent with the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the center of the Snake River; then
(13) Proceed generally southeast along the Idaho-Washington State line in the Snake River to the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W; then
(14) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W, to the 600-meter elevation contour, northeast of Lime Hill in Asotin County, Washington; then
(15) Proceed generally west and then generally south-southwest along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the southern boundary line of section 25, T7N/R46E; then
(16) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of section 25 and 26, crossing onto the Clarkston map, and continuing along the southern boundary lines of section 26 to the 600-meter elevation contour west of Joseph Creek; then
(17) Proceed southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the western boundary line of section 34, T7N/R46E; then
(18) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34 and 27, T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande Ronde River, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(19) Proceed generally northeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour and continue along the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Clarkston and Orofino maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 600-meter elevation line intersects the Garfield-Asotin County line for the third time along the western boundary of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then
(20) Proceed north along the Garfield-Asotin County line, returning to the beginning point.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 49,815-acre “Eagle Foothills” viticultural area in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the Snake River Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
Comments must be received by June 15, 2015.
Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:
•
•
•
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed viticultural AVA;
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Martha Cunningham, owner of the 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, on behalf of the local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Eagle Foothills” AVA. The original proposed name for the AVA was “Willow Creek Idaho.” However, after TTB determined that the name evidence provided in the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate that the region is known by that name, the petitioner submitted a request to change the proposed AVA name to “Eagle Foothills.”
The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA covers portions of Gem and Ada Counties, Idaho, and is located to the immediate north of the city of Eagle and approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Boise. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Snake River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.208) and does not overlap any other existing or proposed AVA. The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA contains approximately 49,815 acres, with 9 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 67 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. The petition states that an additional 4 acres will soon be added to an existing vineyard. Additionally, 7 commercial vineyards covering approximately 472 acres are planned within the proposed AVA in the next few years.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA include its topography, soils, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located on the southwestern flanks of Prospect Peak and Crown Point, two prominent peaks in the mountainous region known as the “Boise Front,” which rises to the east of the proposed AVA. Due to its location north of the city of Eagle and within the foothills of the Boise Front, the region of the proposed AVA is commonly referred to as the “Eagle Foothills.”
The petitioner provided several examples of the use of “Eagle Foothills” to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. For example, a local ranch offers several guided horseback tours, including one through the “Eagle Foothills.”
The northern boundary of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA follows straight lines drawn between peaks marked on the USGS Southwest Emmett and Southeast Emmett quadrangle maps. The boundary separates the rugged terrain of the proposed AVA from the lower, flatter elevations of Emmett Valley and the Payette River Plain. The proposed eastern boundary follows the 3,400-foot elevation contour and lines drawn between peaks on the USGS Pearl and Eagle quadrangle maps to approximate the eastern boundary of the established Snake River Valley AVA. TTB notes that the proposed boundary is only an approximation of the Snake River Valley AVA because the established AVA's boundaries were drawn using maps that measure elevations in meters instead of feet. The proposed eastern boundary separates the proposed AVA from the higher elevations of the Boise Front, including Prospect Peak and Crown Point. The proposed southern boundary follows roads marked on the USGS Eagle, Star, and Middleton quadrangle maps in order to separate the proposed AVA from the lower elevations and urban landscape of the cities of Eagle and Boise. The proposed western boundary follows the Ada-Canyon County line and separates the proposed AVA from the lower elevations and flatter terrain of the Boise River Plain.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA include its topography, soils, and climate.
According to the petition, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located within the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion of Idaho.
A network of seasonal creeks, including Willow Creek, Big Gulch Creek, Little Gulch Creek, Woods Gulch, and their tributaries, flow southwesterly through the proposed AVA and have etched deep gulches. The rugged terrain has a variety of slope aspects, including a multitude of south-facing slopes that are preferred by vineyard owners. Slope angles vary within the proposed AVA from 2 to 15 degrees, with an average of 8 degrees. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 2,490 feet to approximately 3,400 feet, with an average elevation of approximately 2,900 feet.
The topography of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is distinguishable from that of the surrounding regions. To the north of the proposed AVA is Emmett Valley and the Payette River Plain, which are classified within the Treasure Valley ecoregion of Idaho. The Treasure Valley ecoregion is described as being heavily irrigated for agricultural purposes and having a much greater population density than the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion in which the proposed AVA is located.
The topography of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has an effect on viticulture. For example, the elevations within the proposed AVA are higher than the elevations in the regions to the north, west and south, so cold air drains away from the proposed AVA and pools in the neighboring plains and valleys. As a result, damaging frosts are not as common within the proposed AVA as they are in the lower surrounding regions. Additionally, the abundance of south-facing slopes within the proposed AVA allows vineyards to be planted where the vines can receive the most sunlight. According to the petition, a vineyard on a south-facing slope with a 10 percent slope angle can receive 25 percent more sunlight than a vineyard planted on a flat site.
Loams, sandy loams, coarse sandy loams, and stony loams are the predominate soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA. These soils derived from the erosion of the sedimentary bedrock that once formed the bottom of the ancient Lake Idaho, as well as from the erosion of the granitic mountains of the Boise Front. Small amounts of volcanic ash are present in the soils, and levels of organic matter are low. The soils are notable for their large, irregularly shaped, coarse grains, which allow water to drain quickly and thoroughly and contribute to a relatively low water-holding capacity. Depth to bedrock ranges from 25 to 50 inches, and pH levels range from mildly acidic (6.75) to mildly alkaline (7.25).
The soils of the surrounding regions are distinguishable from the soils of the proposed AVA. To the north and south of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily derived from active flood-plain alluvium from the Payette and Boise River systems, respectively. These soils have a finer, more uniform texture and greater water-holding capacity than the coarser, larger-grained soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA. To the east, the soils in the mountains of the Boise Front are derived primarily from granite and volcanic materials and lack the sedimentary materials found in the soils of the proposed AVA. To the west of the proposed AVA, the soils become increasingly fine-grained and the depth to bedrock increases due to greater wind-blown and alluvial deposition. According to the petition, soils to the west of the proposed AVA can reach depths of 150 inches or more.
The soils of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA have an effect on viticulture. The large, coarse, irregularly shaped grains found in most of the soils of the proposed AVA do not fit together tightly, allowing for “pockets” of oxygen to form between the grains. These “pockets” promote healthy root growth because if a soil is too compacted, the roots can essentially suffocate and die from lack of oxygen. The spaces between soil grains also discourage rot and mildew because they allow water to drain more rapidly than finer, uniform soil grains that are more closely packed together. The depth of the soil within the proposed AVA allows roots to reach depths that are deep enough to not be overly sensitive
The petition provided information to show that the climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is distinguishable from that of the surrounding regions. The following table from the petition summarizes the annual precipitation amounts, average growing season temperature, growing degree day (GDD) accumulation
The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has a cool climate, as evidenced by the short growing season and low GDD accumulations. The cool climate of the proposed AVA places it in Region 1b of the Winkler classification system, meaning that early- and mid-season varieties of grapes, such as Chardonnay, Pinot Gris, and Riesling, can successfully grow and ripen. Additionally, the cool temperatures of the proposed AVA produce grapes with lower acidity levels than the same grape varietals grown in warmer climates. Finally, the rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA are sufficient to promote healthy vine growth but also are low enough to produce small berries with concentrated flavors that are not diluted by an excess of water.
The climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is different from that of the surrounding region. The higher elevations to the east, where the Boise “7N” weather station is located, have higher precipitation amounts, a shorter growing season, and lower GDD accumulations (indicating cooler growing season temperatures) that would not allow most varieties of grapes to ripen reliably. The Caldwell, Emmett, Nampa, and Boise Air Terminal weather stations, all of which are at lower elevations than the proposed AVA, have lower precipitation amounts, a longer growing season, and higher GDD accumulations (indicating warmer growing season temperatures). Based on the GDD accumulations, these lower plains regions are classified as Region II areas in the Winkler classification system.
In summary, the topography, soils, and climate of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The following table, derived from information in the petition, compares the features of the proposed AVA to the features of the surrounding areas.
T.D. TTB-59, which published in the
The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is located along the eastern edge of the Snake River Valley AVA and shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. The proposed AVA is also located within the remains of ancient Lake Idaho at elevations below 1,040 meters (approximately 3,412 feet). Like much of the Snake River Valley AVA, the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is a semiarid region with vineyards planted on slopes to maximize sunlight exposure and minimize the risk of frost. However, the proposed viticultural area receives several more inches of rainfall annually, in comparison with the majority of the Snake River Valley AVA. Additionally, the growing season for the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA is slightly longer. Finally, although T.D. TTB-59 states that the soils within the large Snake River Valley AVA are too varied to be a distinguishing feature, the much smaller proposed Eagle Foothills AVA has fairly uniform soil characteristics throughout, and the soils of the proposed AVA can be distinguished from the soils of the surrounding regions.
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 49,815-acre Eagle Foothills AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name or other term identified as being viticulturally significance in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term and that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name or other viticulturally significant term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, “Eagle Foothills,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Eagle Foothills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using “Snake River Valley” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Snake River Valley would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA would allow vintners to use “Eagle Foothills” and “Snake River Valley” as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA's location within the existing Snake River Valley AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing Snake River Valley AVA. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Snake River Valley AVA that the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA on wine labels that include the term “Eagle Foothills” as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 150 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0006 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Southwest Emmett, Idaho, 1970;
(2) Southeast Emmett, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;
(3) Pearl, Idaho, provisional edition 1985;
(4) Eagle, Idaho, 1998;
(5) Star, Idaho, 1953; and
(6) Middleton, Idaho, 1958; photorevised 1971.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Southwest Emmett map at the intersection of the Ada, Gem, and Canyon County lines at the southwestern corner of section 31, T6N/R1W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed north along the western boundary of sections 31 and 30 to the northwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then
(3) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,109-foot elevation point near the southwest corner of section 31, T6N/R1W; then
(4) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Southeast Emmett map, to the marked 3,230-foot elevation point in section 22, T6N/R1W; then
(5) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line to the marked 3,258-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then
(6) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the 3,493-foot elevation point in section 23, T6N/R1W; then
(7) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the 3,481-foot elevation point in section 13, T6N/R1W; then
(8) Proceed northeast in a straight line to the intersection of the marked 4-wheel drive trail with the R1W range line; then
(9) Proceed north along the R1W range line to its first intersection with the 3,400-foor elevation contour; then
(10) Proceed east along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Pearl map, then continuing easterly, then southerly, along the meandering 3,400-foot elevation contour, crossing Schiller Creek, the North and South Forks of Willow Creek, and Big Gulch Creek, to the first intersection of the 3,400-foot contour line with the R1E/R2E range line, with forms the eastern boundary of section 13, T5N/R1E; then
(11) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the marked 3,613-foot elevation in point Section 18, T5N/R2E; then
(12) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,426-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then
(13) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,416-foot elevation point in Section 24, T5N/R1E; then
(14) Proceed west in a straight line to the marked 3,119-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then
(15) Proceed south in a straight line to the marked 3,366-foot elevation point in Section 23, T5N/R1E; then
(16) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,372-foot elevation point in Section 26, T5N/R1E; then
(17) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing back onto the Pearl map, to the marked 3,228-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then
(18) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 3,205-foot elevation point in Section 22, T5N/R1E; then
(19) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing onto the Eagle map, to the marked 3,163-foot elevation point in Section 27, T5N/R1E; then
(20) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,958-foot elevation point in Section 28, T5N/R1E; then
(21) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the northeast corner of section 32, T5N/R1E; then
(22) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of Section 32 to the point where the boundary joins Pearl Road, then continue south along Pearl Road to the intersection of the road with Beacon Road; then
(23) Proceed west along Beacon Road, crossing onto the Star map, to the intersection of Beacon Road with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as North Wing Road at the southern boundary of section 32, T5N/R1W; then
(24) Proceed south along North Wing Road to the intersection of the road with New Hope Road in Section 5, T4N/R1W; then
(25) Proceed west along New Hope Road, crossing onto the Middleton map, to the intersection of the road with the Ada-Canyon County line; then
(26) Proceed north along the Ada-Canyon County line, crossing onto the Southwest Emmett map, to the beginning point.
Postal Service
Notice of proposed revision of standards; invitation to comment.
The Postal Service proposes to replace USPS STD 7B, which governs the design of curbside mailboxes, with new USPS STD 7C. The proposed new STD 7C was developed internally to meet the operational requirements of the Postal Service.
The Postal Service must receive written comments on or before June 15, 2015.
Comments regarding this proposal are invited. Written comments should be mailed to U.S. Postal Service, Delivery Operations ATTN: Ashlea Meyer, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 7142, Washington, DC 20260-7142. Copies of all written comments will be available for public inspection and copying between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the address above.
Ashlea Meyer, (202) 268-7256.
U.S. Postal Service Standard, Mailboxes, City and Rural Curbside, USPS STD 7B, governs the design of curbside mailboxes. Pursuant to the
As discussed in more detail below, the Postal Service is proposing that the design and performance requirements for
The addition of these new design options does not impact the continued approval status of any current USPS STD 7B mailbox.
Options incorporated in the proposed new standard USPS STD 7C include the following:
1. Introduces for a new version of locked and non-locked mailbox designs the requirement to accommodate the insertion and removal of a test gauge measuring 7 inches high by 13 inches wide by 16 inches deep. This test gauge is the most significant proposed change for the new mailbox designs. The proposed minimum size requirement will allow for a much higher delivery rate in the current mail stream.
2. Adds new Figures 1B and 3 for the new enhanced capacity non-locked and locked mailbox design options. These figures provide overall design parameters for the two new mailbox design options and the figures are not mandatory design templates.
3. Introduces,
4. Reaffirms the prohibition of any style of locks, locking devices, or inserts that require the carrier to use a key or restrict or reduce the interior opening of the mailbox, once the front door has been fully opened for
5. Introduces minimal door catch and signal flag force tests to ensure those components meet prescribed limits.
6. Updates the provisions in Sections 6,
7. Removes the incorporation by reference of certain documents of the American Society of Quality and replaces the current quality-related provisions in 3.1 through 3.1.4 of USPS STD 7B with updated quality requirements in new Section 5,
8. Introduces requirements for use of both USPS and third-party intellectual property. Manufacturers agree not to use USPS marks without USPS approval and a license from the USPS. Manufacturers also have sole responsibility for acquiring all necessary licenses for third-party intellectual property used. All liability rests with the manufacturer for use of third-party intellectual property regarding any USPS approved mailboxes.
The changes proposed by the new USPS STD 7C would not have any impact on any currently approved USPS STD 7B product. Any mailbox manufacturer wishing to seek approval for either or both of the new locked and non-locked design options introduced by USPS STD 7C would follow the process detailed in Section 6,
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes to replace USPS STD 7B with USPS STD 7C as set forth in the Appendix to this document.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301- 307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201- 3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
1.1
1.2
• Non-Locked Mailboxes:
T—Traditional—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.1, and Figure 1A).
C—Contemporary—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.2).
LC—Large Capacity—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.3, and Figure 1B).
• Locked Mailboxes:
LMS—Locked, Mail Slot Design—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1, and Figures 2A and 2B).
LLC—Locked, Large Capacity/USPS Security Tested—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.2, and Figure 3).
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
2.1
2.2
Copies of the applicable sections of the POM can be obtained from USPS Delivery and Retail, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-6200.
2.3
Copies of the ASTM documents can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies of the UL document can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.1.1
3.1.1.2
3.1.1.3
3.1.2
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.1.1
3.1.2.1.2
3.1.2.2
3.1.2.2.1
3.1.2.2.2
3.1.3
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.5
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAIL CARRIERS TO OPEN MAILBOXES THAT ARE LOCKED, ACCEPT KEYS FOR THIS PURPOSE, OR LOCK MAILBOXES AFTER DELIVERY OF THE MAIL.
3.6
3.7
3.7.1
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.11.1
CUSTOMERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL POST OFFICE BEFORE INSTALLING THE MAILBOX TO ENSURE ITS CORRECT PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT AT THE STREET. GENERALLY, MAILBOXES ARE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT OF
3.11.2
THIS IS A LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOX (WITHOUT FLAG) AND IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT WANT POSTAL CARRIERS TO PICK UP THEIR OUTGOING MAIL. UNLESS POSTAL CARRIERS HAVE MAIL TO DELIVER, THEY WILL NOT STOP AT LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOXES.
3.12
3.13
3.14
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
The capacity of Locked designs, submitted for approval under 3.1.2.1, which have slots, chutes or similar features, will be tested and approved based upon whether standard USPS mail sizes (
4.2.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.12.1
4.12.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
• Documents are identified, reviewed, and approved prior to use.
• Revision status is identified.
• Documents of external origin are identified and controlled.
5.3.2
• Material requirements and specifications are clearly described in procurement documents.
• Inspection or other verification methods are established and implemented for validation of purchased materials.
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
It is recognized that each approved source functions individually. Consequently, the quality system of each approved source may differ in the specific methods of accomplishment. It is not the intent of this standard to attempt to standardize these systems, but to present the basic functional concepts that when conscientiously implemented will provide assurance that the approved source's product meets the requirements and fully matches the approved design.
5.3.7
5.3.8
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.3.1
6.1.3.2
6.1.3.3
6.1.3.4
7.1
7.1.1
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2.
7.2.2.1
7.2.2.1.1
7.2.2.2
7.2.2.3
7.2.2.4
7.2.2.5
7.2.3
7.2.3.1
7.2.4
8.1 Mailboxes intended to be used in delivery to customers' doors are not currently “approved” by the United States Postal Service as referenced in this standard. However, it is recommended that these boxes conform to the intentions of this specification, particularly the safety of the carrier and customer and the protection of the mail. The local postmaster must be contacted prior to the installation and use of any door mailbox.
8.2 The United States Postal Service does not approve mailbox posts or regulate mounting of mailboxes other than the requirements specified in 3.10 and 3.11. Please note that mailbox posts are often subject to local restrictions, state laws, and federal highway regulations. Further information may be obtained from:
To obtain the latest list of USPS-approved test labs, contact: USPS ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101.
Additional test laboratories may be added provided they satisfy USPS certification criteria. Interested laboratories should contact: USPS ENGINEERING, TEST EVALUATION AND QUALITY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Large Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0841, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On April 20, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 223 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of Rule 223 in the SIP, and the District has not adopted earlier versions of this rule.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 223 establishes permitting requirements for LCAFs and establishes a menu of management practice options that LCAF owner/operators must select from and implement. The rule requirements apply to large operations above specified size thresholds, including dairies with at least 1,000 milking cows and poultry facilities with at least 650,000 birds. The rule requires these operations to apply for and obtain an SCAQMD permit that includes a mitigation plan with measures as listed in an appendix to the rule.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin is an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme for the 1-hour ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and revision/relaxation requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. It contains clear thresholds and control requirements, and it strengthens the SIP by adding new controls for LCAFs.
The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
In our TSD we identify additional control options that may be reasonably available for implementation in the Los Angeles-South Coast area (see “Additional Recommendations”) and that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until May 14, 2015. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 223—Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities, as listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions clarify, update, and revise exemptions from New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements, for various air pollution sources.
Any comments must arrive by May 14, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-
1.
2.
3.
Larry Maurin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3943,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were revised by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On July 15, 2011 and July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 202 and VCAPCD Rule 23, respectively, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 23 into the SIP on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567). Since the last approval of Rule 23 into the SIP, VCAPCD has adopted revisions on November 11, 2003; April 13, 2004; October 12, 2004; September 12, 2006; April 8, 2008; and April 12, 2011.
EKAPCD Rule 202 was last approved into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR 29231). Since the last approval of Rule 202 into the SIP, EKAPCD has adopted revisions on April 25, 1983; November 18, 1985; August 22, 1989; April 30, 1990; August 19, 1991; May 2, 1996; January 8, 1998; March 13, 2003; and January 8, 2004.
All of these revisions were submitted to EPA; however, EPA has not taken action on any of these submittals. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local air district's programs to control these pollutants.
The purposes of VCAPCD Rule 23 (Exemption from Permit) and EKAPCD Rule 202 (Permit Exemptions) are to identify when a new or modified source is exempted from the requirement to obtain a permit prior to construction. Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to verify and maintain any exemption.
The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the new and existing exemptions in the submitted rules include CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, for satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.
Ventura County is designated as a serious nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other NAAQS.
Eastern Kern County is designated as a marginal and moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively, and as a serious nonattainment area for the PM
The revised VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules affect the minor source NSR programs by revising existing exemptions, adding new exemptions, and exempting minor agricultural sources with emissions less than 50 percent of the major source thresholds.
The requirements in 40 CFR 51.160, subsections (a) through (e), provide the basis for evaluating exemptions from NSR permitting. The basic purpose of NSR permitting is set forth in 40 CFR 51.160(a), requiring NSR SIPs to set forth legally enforceable procedures that enable the State or local agency to determine whether the construction or modification of a stationary source would result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy, or would interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. Section 51.160(e) provides that the procedures must identify types and sizes of stationary sources that will be subject to NSR permitting review. We view this provision as allowing a State to exempt certain types and sizes of stationary sources so long as the program continues to serve the purposes outlined in 40 CFR 51.160(a). Thus, the revised and new exemptions discussed in detail in the TSDs, and the exemptions for non-major agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive emissions) are less than 50 percent of the major source thresholds are approvable so long as the minor source permitting programs (
Under 40 CFR 51.160, the Districts have discretion in conducting the minor sources permitting programs to exempt certain small or de minimus sources. Congress directed the States and Districts to exercise the primary responsibility under the CAA to tailor air quality control measures, including minor source permitting programs, to the State's needs. See
EPA has reviewed the submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules in accordance with CAA Section 110(a) and 40 CFR 51.160 as described above. In our evaluation, EPA has determined that the emissions which may result from the revised and new exemptions set forth in the submitted VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules meet acceptable de minimus criteria as allowed in 40 CFR 51.160(e). See the attached TSDs for each district for more information on these revised and new exemptions.
The submitted rules also add a new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM
EPA has also evaluated the revised VCAPCD Rule 23 and EKAPCD Rule 202 for consistency with CAA Section 110(l) requirements. As noted above, the new exemptions in Rule 23, would result in de minimus increases in emissions. For the new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM
The new exemptions in EKAPCD Rule 202 will result in de minimus increases in emissions and would result in a strengthening of the SIP. For the new exemption for new or modified minor agricultural sources whose actual emissions (excluding fugitive PM
The TSDs for each District rule have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules.
Because EPA considers the submitted rules to fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules regarding exemptions from permit requirements discussed in section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to make two separate and independent determinations regarding the Libby, Montana nonattainment area for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0254, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
1.
2.
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
b. 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.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established a health-based PM
On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA lowered the primary annual PM
On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA promulgated our air quality designations for the 1997 PM
In response, the State of Montana submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions on June 26, 2006 and March 26, 2008 intended to meet planning requirements for the Libby nonattainment area. In particular, based on section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and the April 5, 2005 effective date of designation as nonattainment, the attainment plan identified April 2010 as the applicable attainment date.
On September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55713), EPA proposed to approve Montana's attainment plan. EPA proposed this action in accordance with the “Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 2007), which EPA issued to assist states in their development of SIPs to meet the Act's attainment planning requirements for the 1997 PM
EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations regarding the Libby nonattainment area. First, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Libby nonattainment area attained the 1997 annual PM
EPA is also proposing to make a determination that the Libby nonattainment area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted quality-assured air quality monitoring data into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for 2007-2009 and subsequently certified that data. EPA's evaluation of this data shows that the Libby nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual PM
The criteria for determining if an area is attaining the 1997 annual PM
This proposed determination of attainment for the Libby nonattainment area is based on EPA's evaluation of quality-controlled, quality-assured, and certified annual PM
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has reviewed the PM
This section and section VI of EPA's proposal addresses the effects of a final clean data determination and a final determination of attainment by the attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area. For the 1997 annual PM
On January 4, 2013, in
In light of the Court's decision and its remand of the Implementation Rule, EPA finalized the “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM
As set forth in more detail below, under EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation, a determination that the area has attained the standard suspends the state's obligation to submit attainment-related planning requirements of subpart 4 (and the applicable provisions of subpart 1) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. These include requirements to submit an attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures, because the purpose of these provisions is to help reach attainment, a goal which has already been achieved.
Over the past two decades, EPA has consistently applied its Clean Data Policy interpretation to attainment-related provisions of subparts 1, 2, and 4. The Clean Data Policy is the subject of several EPA memoranda and regulations. In addition, numerous individual rulemakings published in the
As noted above, EPA incorporated its Clean Data Policy interpretation in both its 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule and in its PM
However, in light of the Court's decision, EPA's Clean Data Policy interpretation under subpart 4 is set forth here, for the purpose of identifying the effects of a determination of attainment for the 1997 annual PM
In EPA's proposed and final rulemaking actions determining that the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area attained the PM
The general requirements of subpart 1 apply in conjunction with the more specific requirements of subpart 4, to the extent they are not superseded or subsumed by the subpart 4 requirements. Subpart 1 contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment.
EPA has long interpreted the provisions of subpart 1 (section 171 and 172) as not requiring the submission of RFP for an area already attaining the ozone NAAQS. For an area that is attaining, showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment “will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.” General Preamble, 57 FR 13564.
Section 189(c)(1) of subpart 4 states that:
With respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes of part D, RFP
Although section 189(c) states that revisions shall contain milestones which are to be achieved until the area is redesignated to attainment, such milestones are designed to show RFP “toward attainment by the applicable attainment date,” as defined by section 171. Thus, it is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no further milestones are necessary or meaningful. This interpretation is supported by language in section 189(c)(3), which mandates that a state that fails to achieve a milestone must submit a plan that assures that the state will achieve the milestone or attain the NAAQS if there is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve milestones does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
In the General Preamble, EPA noted with respect to section 189(c) that the purpose of the milestone requirement “is to `provide for emission reductions adequate to achieve the standards by the applicable attainment date' (H.R. Rep. No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 (1990)).” 57 FR 13539. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled.
Similarly, the requirements of section 189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no longer apply so long as an area has attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) provides in relevant part that:
Where the area has attained the standard and there are no further milestones, there is no further requirement to make a submission showing that such milestones have been met. This is consistent with the position that EPA took with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstrations, and Related Requirements for the Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” (the “1995 Seitz memorandum”) with respect to the requirements of section 182(b) and (c). In the 1995 Seitz memorandum, EPA also noted that section 182(g), the milestone requirement of subpart 2, which is analogous to provisions in section 189(c), is suspended upon a determination that an area has attained. The memorandum, also citing additional provisions related to attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, stated:
With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(B), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that the plan provide for “a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date . . .” As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble, and the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth in the 1995 Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.” 57 FR 13564.
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9). EPA has interpreted the contingency measure requirements of sections 172(c)(9)
Section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas:
The contingency measure requirement is inextricably tied to the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if RFP targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved attainment by the attainment date, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in the General Preamble: “The section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.”
Both sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) require “provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures” (
The suspension of the obligations to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, RACM, contingency measure and other related requirements exists only for as long as the area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has monitored a violation of the NAAQS, the basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist. In that case, the area would again be subject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a final determination that the area need not submit one of the pertinent SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the requirements for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Only if and when EPA redesignates the area to attainment would the area be relieved of these submission obligations. Attainment determinations under the Clean Data Policy do not shield an area from obligations unrelated to attainment in the area, such as provisions to address pollution transport.
As set forth previously, based on our proposed determination that the Libby nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 annual PM
As discussed in the Background section, on March 17, 2011 EPA approved April 2010 as the applicable attainment date for the Libby nonattainment area.
Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to determine that the Libby nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual PM
This rulemaking action proposes to make determinations of attainment based on air quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed determinations of attainment:
• Are 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);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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
• do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Charles F. Hobbs, on behalf of AdTec, Inc.; Jennifer Hightower,
Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before April 29, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Bryan P. Boyle, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7924, email:
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3017, released April 8, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3017 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the January 25, 2013, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (
We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before May 14, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or
We are reopening the comment period for our proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Zuni bluehead sucker habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the subspecies and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their probable impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Zuni bluehead sucker and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, we seek information on any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate and the description of the environmental impacts in the draft environmental assessment is complete and accurate.
(7) Whether any areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation, and specifically proposed critical habitat on Tribal lands owned by the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo, should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.
(9) Information about the habitat conditions within the proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker, especially the quality and quantities of the primary constituent elements (PCEs), particularly within the Rio Nutria above the Tampico Draw confluence, Rio Pescado, and Cebolla Creek.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 5351; January 25, 2013) during the initial comment period from January 25, 2013, to March 26, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rule. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments and other relevant information, we may, during the development of our final determination on the proposed critical habitat designation, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental assessment by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, the draft economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment, will be available for public inspection on
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the designation of critical habitat, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule, published in the
On January 25, 2013, we concurrently published a proposed rule to list as endangered and a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (78 FR 5369 and 78 FR 5351, respectively). We proposed to designate approximately 475.3 kilometers (km) (291.3 miles (mi)) in three units in McKinley, Cibola, and San Juan Counties, New Mexico, and Apache County, Arizona as critical
After the publication of the proposed rules, we found there was substantial scientific disagreement regarding the taxonomic status of some populations that we considered Zuni bluehead sucker in the proposed listing rule. On January 9, 2014, we published in the
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
In this document, we are proposing revisions to the critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead that we proposed on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351). These revisions are based on information we received during the comment period. The best available information identifies that Zuni bluehead sucker does not occur in proposed Unit 3 (San Juan River Unit), and a portion of proposed Unit 1 (Zuni River Unit) does not meet the definition of critical habitat. We are not proposing any revisions to proposed Unit 2 (Kinlichee Creek Unit). As a result of the removal of proposed Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1 from our proposed critical habitat designation, the total amount of proposed critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker is decreased from approximately 475.3 kilometers (km) (291.3 miles (mi)) to approximately 228.4 km (141.9 mi).
Based on new information regarding the proposed Zuni River Unit (Unit 1), we are removing the Rio Pescado above Pescado Dam from the proposed critical habitat within the Zuni River Mainstem (Subunit 1b). We originally proposed 107.8 km (67.0 mi) along the Zuni River, Rio Pescado, and Cebolla Creek as critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker in Subunit 1b. Although we considered the entire subunit to be unoccupied, we stated in the proposed designation that this subunit is essential for the conservation of the Zuni bluehead sucker because it provides for connection between populations and also provides space for the growth and expansion of the subspecies in this portion of its historical range. However, the presence of primary constituent elements in this unit had not been investigated in any detail at the time of the proposed critical habitat designation. Based upon further investigation, this area of the Rio Pescado (above Pescado Dam) is a dry wash with no running water present except during periods of rain; this reach likely never had perennial flow. As a result, stream habitat (pools, runs, riffles) and substrate (gravel, cobble) are absent, and the area does not meet the habitat needs for any life stage, nor does it provide connectivity to any population of Zuni bluehead sucker, nor do we expect that it ever was habitat for the subspecies in the past. Therefore, we are removing this portion of Subunit 1b from our proposed critical habitat designation because suitable habitat is absent and is unlikely to develop, and the segment is not essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The removal of critical habitat above Pescado Dam in Subunit 1b will reduce the total proposed critical habitat designation for Unit 1 from 182 km (113.1 mi) to 131.8 km (81.9 mi).
In addition to these revisions to proposed Unit 1, we are removing the entire San Juan River Unit (proposed Unit 3) from our proposed critical habitat designation; this area includes 196.8 km (118.2 mi) of Navajo Nation lands. We originally proposed two subunits within the San Juan River Unit. The proposed Subunit 3a (Canyon de Chelly) included 187.9 km (112.7 mi) along Tsaile Creek, Wheatfields Creek, Whiskey Creek, Coyote Wash, Crystal Creek, and Sonsela Creek in Apache County, Arizona, and San Juan County, New Mexico. In the proposed critical habitat designation, we stated that the Zuni bluehead sucker occupies all stream reaches in this subunit, and the subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The proposed Subunit 3b (Little Whiskey Creek) included 8.9 km (5.5 mi) along Little Whiskey Creek in San Juan County, New Mexico. We identified this area as unoccupied in the proposed critical habitat designation, but we concluded that the area was essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Since the proposed critical habitat designation, we concluded in the final listing determination (79 FR 43132, July 24, 2014) that the bluehead suckers in the Lower San Juan River watershed should not be recognized as part of the Zuni bluehead sucker subspecies. Rather, the best scientific and commercial information available, including peer review comments we received during the comment period for the 6-month extension (79 FR 1615, January 9, 2014), indicates that these populations in the proposed San Juan River Unit (Unit 3) are bluehead suckers rather than Zuni bluehead suckers. Therefore, while the originally proposed Unit 3 may be important for bluehead suckers, the originally proposed Unit 3 can no longer be considered essential for the conservation of the Zuni bluehead sucker. Therefore, we are removing the San Juan River Unit from proposed critical habitat.
Table 1, below, shows the occupancy, land ownership, and approximate areas of the revised proposed critical habitat units for the Zuni bluehead sucker. Following the table, we present a revised description of Subunit 1b.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if the Secretary determines the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided that such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion of an area, we consider among other factors, the additional regulatory benefits that an area would receive through the analysis under section 7 of the Act addressing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of identifying areas containing essential
When considering the benefits of excluding a particular area, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to incentivize or result in the conservation of the species and its habitat; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a conservation or management plan for the species and its habitat. However, we are considering exclusion of the proposed critical habitat areas owned by the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo to the extent consistent with the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Areas owned by the Zuni Pueblo that we are considering for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation include 38.9 km (24.2 mi) in Subunit 1a and 29.4 km (18.3 mi) in Subunit 1b. In addition, the Navajo Nation owns all of the proposed critical habitat in Subunit 2a (86.9 km (54 mi)) and Subunit 2b (9.6 km (6.0 mi)). For the reasons described below, the Service is also considering all of these Navajo Nation lands for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
In July 2012, we sent notification letters to the Tribes describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with both Tribes about the proposed designation to the extent possible without disclosing predecisional information. In March 2013, we attended a coordination meeting with the Navajo Nation to discuss the proposed designation, and the Navajo Nation provided additional information regarding their land management practices and the potential for developing a fisheries management plan for sport and native fisheries on their lands. Since the meeting, we have received information from the Navajo Nation that they are in the process of amending the Navajo Nation Fisheries Management Plan to ensure that native fishes are the priority in stream fisheries management. We are also working with the Zuni Pueblo to develop a management plan for their lands. The Navajo Nation provided for review a draft management plan that specifically addresses the Zuni bluehead sucker, and we anticipate a final draft will be developed. Although we have not yet received a draft management plan from the Zuni Pueblo, we are working with the Pueblo to assist in the preparation of these documents to provide for the benefit of the subspecies and its habitat.
In addition to these management plans under development by the Tribes, the Service also is considering exclusion of these Tribal lands based on the working relationship we have established with the Tribes. We are aware that designation of critical habitat on tribal lands is generally viewed as an intrusion on their sovereign abilities to manage natural resources in accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. To this end, we have received public comments indicating that Tribes prefer to work with us on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, we are considering exclusion of these Tribal lands in proposed Units 1 and 2 to maintain our working relationships with the Tribes.
In the case of the Zuni bluehead sucker, the benefits of designating critical habitat include increasing public awareness of the presence of the Zuni bluehead sucker and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Zuni bluehead sucker due to protection from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
A final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. We will take into account public comments and carefully weigh the benefits of exclusion versus inclusion of these areas.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker (IEc 2014, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the Executive Orders' regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act, may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We assess to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, first we identified, in the IEM dated June 21, 2013, probable incremental impacts associated with the following categories of activity: (1) Federal lands management (Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation); (2) roadway and bridge construction; (3) agriculture; (4) grazing; (5) groundwater pumping; (6) in-stream dams and diversions; (7) storage and distribution of chemical pollutants; (8) dredging; (9) commercial or residential development; (10) timber harvest; and (11) recreation (including sport fishing and sport-fish stocking, off highway vehicle activity). We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Zuni bluehead sucker is present, Federal agencies are already required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the subspecies. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process that will also consider jeopardy to the listed subspecies.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that result from the subspecies being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Zuni bluehead sucker totals approximately 228.4 km (141.9 mi), of which approximately 70 percent (161.1 km (100.1 mi)) is currently occupied by the subspecies. In these areas, any actions that may affect the subspecies or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Zuni bluehead sucker. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in approximately 70 percent of the proposed critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
The remaining 67.3 km (41.8 mi) (30 percent of the total proposed critical habitat designation) are currently unoccupied by the subspecies but are essential for the conservation of the subspecies. In these unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. Within the 67.3 km (41.8 mi) of unoccupied critical habitat, few actions are expected to occur that would result in section 7 consultations or associated project modifications. In particular, Subunit 2b (9.6 km (6.0 mi)) occurs entirely on Navajo Nation lands, and based on the results of the coordination efforts with the Navajo Nation (see IEM), we do not anticipate that any projects will result in section 7 consultation within the proposed critical habitat areas on these lands. Subunit 1b (57.6 km (35.8 mi)) includes U.S. Forest Service (USFS), private, State, and Zuni Pueblo lands. Communications with affected entities indicate that critical habitat designation is likely only to result in more than just a few consultations in this unit, with minor conservation efforts that would likely result in relatively low probable economic impacts. While current projects are not planned in proposed critical habitat areas on Tribal lands, impacts to future Tribal planning efforts could be affected by proposed critical habitat designation. These future costs are unknown but expected to be relatively small given the projections by effected entities; they are unlikely to exceed $100 million in any single year and therefore would not be significant.
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities. Activities we expect will be subject to consultations that may involve private entities as third parties are residential and commercial development that may occur on Tribal or private lands. However, based on coordination efforts with Tribal partners and State and local agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $10,000 per consultation effort) and therefore would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the Zuni bluehead sucker critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. This is due to two factors: (1) A large portion of proposed critical habitat stream reaches are considered to be occupied by the subspecies (70
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on our consideration of economic impacts, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
The purpose of the draft environmental assessment, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the draft environmental assessment, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the comment period on the environmental consequences resulting from our designation of critical habitat.
In our January 25, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 5351), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until we had evaluated the probable effects on landowners and stakeholders and the resulting probable economic impacts of the designation. Following our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker, we have amended or affirmed our determinations below. Specifically, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in conjunction with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In July 2012, we sent notification letters in to both the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with both Tribes about the proposed designation to the extent possible without disclosing predecisional information. We coordinated with the Navajo Nation in May, October, and November 2012, to organize Zuni bluehead surveys on Navajo lands. We sent out notification letters in January and February 2013 notifying the Tribes that the proposed rule had published in the
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be amended on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5351), as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(e)
(5)
(6) Unit 1: Zuni River Unit, McKinley and Cibola Counties, New Mexico. Map of Unit 1 follows:
(7) Unit 2: Kinlichee Creek Unit, Apache County, Arizona, and McKinley County, New Mexico. Map of Unit 2 follows:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether to list the West Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of fisher (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 14, 2015. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
Erin Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office, 1829 South Oregon Street, Yreka, CA 96097; telephone 530-842-5763; facsimile 530-842-4517. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
On October 7, 2014, we published a proposed rule (79 FR 60419) to list the West Coast DPS of fisher as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing and concurrent proposed designation of critical habitat: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.
Since the publication of the October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule, there has been substantial disagreement regarding available information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data) and related to surveyed versus unsurveyed areas (including data on negative survey results) to help assess distribution and population trends.
We find that there is substantial scientific uncertainty and disagreement about certain data relevant to our listing determination. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider additional information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than April 7, 2016.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for the West Coast DPS of fisher that was published in the
In consideration of the scientific disagreements about certain data, we are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:
(1) Information related to toxicants and rodenticides (including law enforcement information and trend data);
(2) Information regarding areas that have been surveyed compared to areas that have not been surveyed. We are also interested in negative survey results to help assess distribution and population trends.
If you previously submitted comments or information on the October 7, 2014, proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purpose of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Marek's disease-Newcastle disease vaccine, serotype 3, live Marek's disease vector. The environmental assessment, which is based on a risk analysis prepared to assess the risks associated with the field testing of this vaccine, examines the potential effects that field testing this veterinary vaccine could have on the quality of the human environment. Based on the risk analysis and other relevant data, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. We intend to authorize shipment of this vaccine for field testing following the close of the comment period for this notice unless new substantial issues bearing on the effects of this action are brought to our attention. We also intend to issue a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product license for this vaccine, provided the field test data support the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the issuance of a finding of no significant impact and the product meets all other requirements for licensing.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 14, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0002, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.
For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information removed), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 337-6100, fax (515) 337-6120.
Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151
To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Using the risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:
The above-mentioned product is a live Marek's disease serotype 3 vaccine virus containing a gene from the Newcastle disease virus. The attenuated vaccine is intended for use in healthy 18-day-old or older embryonated eggs or day-old chickens, as an aid in the prevention of Marek's disease and Newcastle disease.
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.
Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI
21 U.S.C. 151-159.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
This is a notice to inform the public of an upcoming meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health. The meeting is being organized by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to discuss matters of animal health.
The meeting will be held on April 28 and 29, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
The meeting will be held at the Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Mrs. R.J. Cabrera, Designated Federal Officer, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 34, Riverdale, MD 20737; phone (301) 851-3478, email
The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters of animal health, including means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies.
Tentative topics for discussion at the meeting include:
• Follow-on discussion of antimicrobial resistance, mitigations, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) action plan,
• Comprehensive discussion on porcine epidemic diarrhea,
• Follow-on discussion on foot-and-mouth disease,
• USDA draft framework for emerging diseases,
• Proposed national list of reportable animal diseases,
• Avian influenza, and
• Bovine tuberculosis program—understanding the disease.
A final agenda will be posted on the Committee Web site by April 13, 2015.
Those wishing to attend the meeting in person must complete a brief registration form by clicking on the “SACAH Meeting Sign-Up” button on the Committee's Web site (
Due to time constraints, members of the public will not have an opportunity to participate in the Committee's discussions. However, questions and written statements for the Committee's consideration may be submitted up to 5 working days before the meeting. They may be sent to
This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment concerning authorization to ship for the purpose of field testing, and then to field test, an unlicensed Marek's disease vaccine, serotype 1, live virus. The environmental assessment, which is based on a risk analysis prepared to assess the risks associated with the field testing of this vaccine, examines the potential effects that field testing this veterinary vaccine could have on the quality of the human environment. Based on the risk analysis and other relevant data, we have reached a preliminary determination that field testing this veterinary vaccine will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. We intend to authorize shipment of this vaccine for field testing following the close of the comment period for this notice unless new substantial issues bearing on the effects of this action are brought to our attention. We also intend to issue a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product license for this vaccine, provided the field test data support the conclusions of the environmental assessment and the issuance of a finding of no significant impact and the product meets all other requirements for licensing.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 14, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0003, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; phone (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.
For information regarding the environmental assessment or the risk analysis, or to request a copy of the environmental assessment (as well as the risk analysis with confidential business information removed), contact Dr. Patricia L. Foley, Risk Manager, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 1920 Dayton Avenue, P.O. Box 844, Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 337-6100, fax (515) 337-6120.
Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151
To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Using the risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:
The above-mentioned product is a live Marek's Disease serotype 1 vaccine virus containing the long terminal repeat of the reticuloendotheliosis virus. The attenuated vaccine is intended for use in healthy day-old chickens, as an aid in the prevention of Marek's disease caused by very virulent Marek's disease virus.
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.
Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.
21 U.S.C. 151-159.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
On December 8, 2014, the Charlotte Regional Partnership, grantee of FTZ 57, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Gildan Yarns, LLC, in Salisbury, North Carolina.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
The Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), located in Long Beach, California. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 24, 2015.
The MBUSA facility is located within Site 41 of FTZ 50. The facility is used for accessorizing passenger motor vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSA from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSA would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicles (duty rate−2.5%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Plastic door sills and strips; wheel rim locks; metal door sills and strips; memory cards; navigation systems and related parts; entertainment systems; wiring sets and harnesses; storage compartments; spoilers; and, cup holders (duty rate ranges from free to 5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 26, 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 286 to expand the service area under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
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 63 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone.
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on April 29 and 30, 2015, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2015, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (l0)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 6, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW. Washington, DC The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on August 19, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on May 7, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Opening Remarks and Introductions.
2. Remarks from Bureau of Industry and Security senior management.
3. Report from Composite Working Group and other working groups.
4. Report on regime-based activities.
5. Public Comments and New Business.
6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ l0(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 18, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on April 28, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.
5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on September 6, 2013 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on May 19, 2015,
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.
3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
5. Other business.
6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10 (a) (1) and 10 (a) (3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 20, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a) (1) and 10(a) (3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the
Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4047.
On October 9, 2014, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order includes certain magnesia carbon bricks. Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are the subject of this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000 and 6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
We addressed all issues raised in the case brief by parties in this review in the Decision Memo. A list of issues included in the Decision Memo is attached as Appendix I to this notice. The Decision Memo is a public document and it is available electronically
In the
As noted in the
In the
Further, in the
Additionally, in the
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013:
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For all appropriate entries exported by the PRC-Wide Entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at an antidumping assessment rate of 236.00 percent.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that are eligible for a separate rate from a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-Wide Entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which are not eligible for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 8, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On December 8, 2014, the Department published the
The period of review is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film), whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
All issues raised by parties in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results” (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is available electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made adjustments to our margin calculations for JBF. Specifically, we have made adjustments for commissions JBF received in the home and U.S. markets, we have adjusted JBF's finance expense ratio, and we have adjusted the materials cost to account for certain inputs JBF purchased from an affiliated party.
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period of November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:
We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these final results within five days of the publication of this notice, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
For assessment purposes we calculated importer-specific,
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above in the section “Final Results of Review;” (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final results for the most recent period in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previously completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be 4.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the 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 or 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.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred which will result in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Alice Maldonado or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 and (202) 482-3693, respectively.
On September 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the
On October 15, 2014, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of the following companies: (1) L'Emballage Tout; (2) Rubans; (3) Bon-Mar Textiles; (4) Antonio Proietti Int; and (5) Imprimerie Mikan. On October 30, 2014, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the
On January 27, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its request with respect to King Young. On January 28, 2015, the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of the following companies: (1) Cheng Hsing; (2) Fujian Rongshu; (3) Guangzhou Complacent; (4) Hen Hao; (5) Xiamen Especial; and (6) Xiamen Yi He.
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 petitioner's withdrawals of its requests were submitted within the 90-day period and, thus, are timely. Because the petitioner's withdrawals of its requests for an antidumping duty administrative review are timely, and because no other party requested a review of the companies listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to the following companies: (1) Cheng Hsing; (2) Fujian Rongshu; (3) Guangzhou Complacent; (4) Hen Hao; (5) Xiamen Especial; (6) Xiamen Yi He; and (7) King Young.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Stock Assessment Review Panels (STAR Panels) will hold work sessions to review stock assessments for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish; bocaccio and China rockfish; black rockfish; and widow rockfish and kelp greenling, all of which are open to the public.
See
See
Dr. Jim Hastie, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center; telephone: (206) 860-3412; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The dates of the meetings are as follows:
The STAR Panel for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, April 27, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, April 28, and will continue through Friday, May 1, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, May 1.
The STAR Panel for bocaccio and China rockfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 6, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 7 and will continue through Friday, July 10, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 10.
The STAR Panel for the black rockfish stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 20, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 21 and will continue through Friday, July 24, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 5:30 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business. The Panel will adjourn on Friday, July 24.
The STAR Panel for the widow rockfish and kelp greenling stock assessments will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m., Monday, July 27, 2015 and end at 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The Panel will reconvene on Tuesday, July 28, and will continue through Friday, July 31, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and
The locations of the meetings are as follows:
The STAR Panel for canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish will be held the Hotel Deca, 4507 Brooklyn Avenue NE., Seattle, WA 98105; telephone: (206) 634-2000.
The STAR Panel for the bocaccio and China rockfish stock assessments will be held at the NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; telephone: (831) 420-3900.
The STAR Panels for the black rockfish stock assessments and the widow rockfish and kelp greenling stock assessments will be held at the NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Newport Research Station, 2032 SE OSU Drive, Building 955, Newport, OR 97365; telephone: (541) 867-0500.
The purpose of the STAR Panels is to review draft 2015 stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information for new benchmark stock assessments for canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio, China rockfish, black rockfish, widow rockfish, and kelp greenling; work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions; and produce STAR Panel reports for use by the Pacific Council and other interested persons for developing management recommendations for fisheries in 2017 and beyond. No management actions will be decided by the STAR Panels. The Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Pacific Council at its June meeting in Spokane, WA and its September meeting in Sacramento, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STAR Panels participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STAR Panel action during these meetings. Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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 Panel participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.
All visitors to the NMFS science centers should bring photo identification to the meeting location. Visitors who are foreign nationals (defined as a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States) will require additional security clearance to access the NOAA facilities. Foreign national visitors should contact Dr. Jim Hastie at (206) 860-3412 at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting date to initiate the security clearance process.
This 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.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 10 days of publication of this notice to
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-05 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 32 T-700 GE 401C Engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 1000 AGM-114 R Hellfire II Missiles in containers, 36 H-1 Technical Refresh Mission computers, 17 AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems, 30 629F-23 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Communication Systems, 19 H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, 32 Helmet Mounted Display/Optimized Top Owl, 17 APX-117A Identification Friend or Foe, 17 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 17 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, 18 AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers, 15 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and 17 M197 20mm Gun Systems. Also included are system integration and testing, software development and integration, aircraft ferry, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $952 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia.
This proposed sale of helicopters and weapon systems will provide Pakistan with military capabilities in support of its counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations in South Asia.
This proposed sale will provide Pakistan with a precision strike, enhanced survivability aircraft that it can operate at high-altitudes. By acquiring this capability, Pakistan will enhance its ability to conduct operations in North Waziristan Agency (NWA), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and other remote and mountainous areas in all-weather, day-and-night environments. Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron in Fort Worth, Texas; General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts; The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama; and Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews, as well as training and maintenance support in country for a period of 66 months. It will also require three contractor representatives to reside in country for a period of three years to support this program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopter is a twin-engine attack helicopter that features a four-blade, bearingless, composite main rotor system, upgraded transmission, and a new target sighting system. The AH-1Z incorporates new rotor technology with upgraded military avionics, weapons systems, and electro-optical sensors in an integrated weapons platform. It has improved survivability and can find targets at longer ranges and attack them with precision weapons. The blades are made of composites, which have an increased ballistic survivability, and there is a semiautomatic folding system for stowage aboard amphibious assault ships. Its two redesigned wing stubs are longer, having stations for 2.75-inch (70 mm) Hydra 70 rocket pods and AGM-114 R NON-NATO Hellfire quad missile launchers.
a. The integrated avionics system (IAS) includes two mission computers and an automatic flight control system. Each crew station has two 8x6-inch multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one 4.2x4.2-inch dual function LCD display. The communications suite will have an ARC 210 629F-23 (NON COMSEC) Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) radio, and associated communications equipment. The navigation suite includes a Honeywell H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGIs), a digital map system and a low-airspeed air data subsystem, which allows weapons delivery when hovering.
b. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM) harmonized to a night vision goggle to provide day/night capability. The AH-1Z has survivability equipment including the AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning and Laser Detection System, AN/ALE-47 Counter Measure Dispensing System (CMDS) and the AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver
c. The AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight System (TSS) is the multi-sensor electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) fire control system. The TSS provides target sighting in day, night or adverse weather conditions. It has a large aperture midwave Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor, color television, laser designator/rangefinder and an on-gimbal inertial measurement unit integrated into a highly stabilized turret mounted to the nose of the aircraft. The TSS provides the capability to identify and laser-designate targets at maximum weapon range, significantly enhancing platform survivability and lethality. The TSS hardware is unclassified, but the laser designation implementation is classified Confidential.
d. The AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System is unclassified. The AN/AAR-47 is a missile approach warning system used to notify the pilot of threats and to trigger the aircraft's countermeasures systems. The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files used on the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret. The software programs contain threat parametric data used to identify and establish priority of detected radar emitters.
e. The AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System is Unclassified. AN/AAR-47 is a threat-adaptive dispensing system that dispenses chaff, and flares for self-protection against airborne and ground-based Radio Frequency and Infrared threats. The AN/AAR-47OFP and Mission Data Files used in the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret.
f. The AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver is unclassified. The AN/APR-39C(V)2 system detects the radio emissions of radar systems that might be a threat. The warning can then be used, manually or automatically, to evade the detected threat. The AN/APR-39C(V)2, OFP, and Mission Data Files used in the AN/AAR-47 are classified Secret.
g. The Rockwell Collins 629F-23 is an exportable version the ARC-210 programmable digital communication system. The 629F-23 is a fully digital transceiver, with performance from 30 to 512 MHz and provides interoperability between ground and airborne military forces and land-based civil agencies. The 629F-23 is Unclassified. This version does not offer a SAT COM or COMSEC capability.
h. The AN/APX-117 is a combined interrogator/transponder and is unclassified. The AN/APX-117 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) is an exportable version of the USMC AN/APX-118 IFF with Modes 1,2,3,4, and Mode 5 capable being provided.
i. The H-1 Technical Refresh Mission Computer (TRMC) is an upgrade to the H-1 weapon system. The TRMC will contain the mission processor, video/graphics processing, and I/O required interfacing the TRMC with other elements of the Integrated Avionics Suite. The TRMC hardware is Unclassified. The OFP and Data Files used in the TRMC are classified Secret.
j. The crew is equipped with the Optimized Top Owl (OTO) helmet-mounted sight and display system. The OTO has a Day Display Module (DDM) and a Night Display Module (NDM to provide day/night capability.)
k. The H764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs) is a modification of the H-1 CN-1689(V)13 units used on the USMC AH-1Z and UH-1Y to meet export requirements. The export version will remove the Precise Positioning Service-Security Module (PPS_SM) and replace it with a Standard Positioning service (SPS) GPS Receiver. The classification of the EGI is Unclassified.
l. The AGM-114 R Hellfire II missile is an air-to-surface missile with a multi-mission, multi-target, precision strike capability. The Hellfire can be launched from multiple air platforms and is the primary precision weapon for the United States Army.
m. The highest level for release of the AGM-114 R Hellfire II is Secret, based upon the software. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential. Reverse engineering could reveal Confidential information. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified Secret or Confidential.
n. The M197 20mm Gun System is a three-barreled electric Gatling-type rotary cannon used by the USMC AH-1Z aircraft. The Gun System incorporates a link less feed system that corrects problems with jamming. The system is capable of holding 650 rounds in the storage unit. The Gun system is Unclassified.
o. The Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS) provide support for unit-level mission planning for all phases of military flight operations and have the capability to provide necessary mission data for the aircrew. JMPS will support the downloading of data to electronics data transfer devices for transfer to aircraft and weapon systems. The JMPS will be tailored to the specific releasable configuration for the AH-1Z. The Joint Mission Planning System is Secret.
2. If a technologically advance adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent system with might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the Government of Pakistan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Pakistan.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Independent Review Panel on Military Medical Construction Standards (“the Panel”).
8:00 a.m.-8:45 a.m. EDT (Preparatory Session)
8:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m. EDT (Open Session)
11:45 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT (Preparatory Session)
Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Executive Conference Room 4P143, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in
The Executive Director is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
At this meeting, the Panel will address the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), Section 2852(b) requirement to provide the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations regarding a construction standard for military medical centers to provide a single standard of care, as set forth in this notice:
a. Reviewing the unified military medical construction standards to determine the standards consistency with industry practices and benchmarks for world class medical construction;
b. Reviewing ongoing construction programs within the DoD to ensure medical construction standards are uniformly applied across applicable military centers;
c. Assessing the DoD approach to planning and programming facility improvements with specific emphasis on facility selection criteria and proportional assessment system; and facility programming responsibilities between the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Secretaries of the Military Departments;
d. Assessing whether the Comprehensive Master Plan for the National Capital Region Medical (“the Master Plan”), dated April 2010, is adequate to fulfill statutory requirements, as required by section 2714 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (division B of Pub. L. 111-84; 123 Stat. 2656), to ensure that the facilities and organizational structure described in the Master Plan result in world class military medical centers in the National Capital Region; and
e. Making recommendations regarding any adjustments of the Master Plan that are needed to ensure the provision of world class military medical centers and delivery system in the National Capital Region.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Panel meeting is open to the public from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on April 30, 2015, as the Panel will meet in an open forum to receive briefings on the Military Health System plan and Defense Health Agency's Facilities Division flexibility studies.
A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the April 30, 2015, meeting, as well as any other materials presented, may be obtained at the meeting.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the Panel may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the procedures described in this notice.
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the Panel may do so by submitting a written statement to the Executive Director (see the
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the Executive Director may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The Executive Director will review all timely submissions with the Panel Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Panel before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the Panel Chairperson and the Executive Director may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Executive Director, in consultation with the Panel Chairperson, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Panel.
United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice; publication of Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0, for 30 day public comment period on EAC Web site.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing a procedural manual for its Voting System Testing and Certification Program. This manual sets the administrative procedures for voting system test laboratories in the EAC testing and certification program. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. The program is mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) at 42 US.C. 15371.
HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting systems. Section
EAC is required to submit the Testing and Certification Manual for approval in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requirements. The Testing and Certification Division has updated sections of the manual to reflect proposed changes in certification procedures.
This notice is published in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, to request comments regarding the burden of responding to the information collection activities of the proposed manual; please refer to the EAC's Web site,
Submit written or electronic comments on this draft procedural manual on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2015.
Submit comments via email to
Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.
United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice; publication of Voting System Testing and Certification Manual, Version 2.0, for 30 day public comment period on EAC Web site.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing a procedural manual for its Voting System Testing and Certification Program. This manual sets the administrative procedures for obtaining an EAC Certification for voting systems. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary. The program is mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) at 42 U.S.C. 15371.
EAC is required to submit the Testing and Certification Manual for approval in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requirements. The Testing and Certification Division has updated sections of the manual to reflect proposed changes in certification procedures.
Submit written or electronic comments on this draft procedural manual on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2015.
Submit comments via email to
Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participates in the public process administered by the International Code Council (ICC), which produces the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). DOE develops and publishes code change proposals for the IECC, prior to submitting them to the ICC, to allow interested parties an opportunity to suggest revisions, enhancements and comments. This notice outlines the process by which DOE produces its code change proposals for the IECC, and otherwise participates in the ICC code development process. This process will be used when DOE participates in the development of the 2018 IECC and other codes developed by the ICC.
DOE is requesting written comments on the proposed process by which DOE will develop code change proposals for submission to the ICC by May 14, 2015.
Any comments submitted must identify the Notice for DOE Participation in Development of the International Energy Conservation Code, and provide docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0002. Comments may be submitted by using either of the following methods:
1.
2.
Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 287-1941; Email:
For legal issues:
Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-0669; Email:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by participating in the code development processes administered by the International Code Council (ICC). As a participant in this process, DOE considers and evaluates concepts to be submitted as proposed changes to the IECC (“code”). This Notice outlines the process by which DOE produces code change proposals and participates in the ICC code development process, including the 2018 IECC, as well as other codes published by the ICC.
Title III of the Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended (ECPA), establishes requirements related to energy conservation standards for new buildings. (42 U.S.C. 6831-6837) Section 307 (b) of ECPA directs DOE to support voluntary building energy codes by periodically reviewing the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building codes, recommending amendments to such codes, seeking adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures, and otherwise participate in any industry process for review and modification of such codes. (42 U.S.C. 6836(b))
The DOE Building Energy Codes Program mission supports the development and implementation of model building energy codes and standards to achieve the maximum practicable and cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency, while providing safe, healthy buildings for occupants.
The Department seeks to advance energy efficiency by cost-effectively strengthening the code and clarifying provisions to be more easily understood, implemented and enforced. DOE is directed to participate in the development of model building energy codes, such as the IECC, for residential and commercial buildings. DOE participates in the ICC development process by:
• Conducting technical
• Developing and submitting
• Supporting proposals through the ICC
In preparation for the development of code change proposals, DOE conducts analyses to ensure that its proposals are technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE analyses will identify anticipated energy and economic savings impact associated with its energy savings concepts. This ensures that DOE proposals are cost-effective as defined by established, publicly reviewed DOE methodologies.
Analyses performed by DOE or its contractors for the purposes of developing code change proposals are technical in nature. DOE is not obligated to conduct analyses for outside parties, but reserves the right to do so where it believes they will support DOE statutory obligations. In conducting such analyses, DOE does not represent or endorse particular individuals or organizations. DOE also cannot enter into joint code change proposals with the exception of proposals submitted jointly with another federal agency.
Satisfactory concepts will be turned into draft code change proposals. To allow interested parties to comment, DOE will post these, along with supporting data and analyses, prior to submitting them to the ICC. DOE will modify its proposals as comments and new information become available; modified versions, with preceding versions of each proposal archived, and changes annotated between each version will also be posted. Final proposals will be clearly identified, and will be posted prior to submission to the ICC. All posted information will be available at
DOE maintains organizational membership with the ICC. As a Governmental Member, DOE intends to participate as defined by the guiding ICC rules and procedures, including participation in the ICC public hearings and exercising assigned voting privileges. At ICC hearings, DOE:
• Will present and defend its own proposals; and
• May present the results of technical analyses it has conducted, including analyses of other parties' proposals when it believes the development process will be improved by providing such information.
The presentation of a DOE proposal or technical analysis does not constitute an endorsement of any particular proposal or product. DOE may alter its proposals based on the procedural events of the official ICC hearing process without seeking further public comment. DOE may also seek additional public comment, such as in cases when a particular proposal is significantly modified for resubmission, following the ICC Committee Action Hearings.
The public will have the following opportunities to provide DOE with input:
1. Comments on posted
2. Participation in
DOE will publish a notice in the
DOE anticipates that it or its contractors may be contacted regarding code concepts, ideas or change proposals prior to and during the code hearings. While DOE code change proposals submitted to the ICC are not regulations, DOE will follow its ex parte communication policy for such communications prior to the code hearings. DOE guidance on ex parte communications was published on January 21, 2009 (74 FR 4685).
During each ICC hearing process, DOE will maintain a published Web site containing submitted DOE proposals, which will also contain a link directed to the Web site and materials maintained by the ICC. DOE recognizes that the code development and public hearing process is based on processes established by the ICC, which do not constitute ex parte communications, and therefore, any discussions of the process at code hearings do not need to follow the guidance.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking input on how it may update and improve its methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness (which includes an energy savings assessment) of residential and commercial building energy codes. DOE is directed by statute to provide technical assistance to states to support the implementation of model building energy codes. As part of this role, DOE conducts national and state-level analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of building energy codes and proposed changes. DOE is interested in feedback on its analysis methodology, preferred sources of cost data, and parameter assumptions surrounding its cost-effectiveness assessment. In addition, DOE is seeking information on the general costs, benefits, and economic impacts associated with building energy codes. This notice identifies several areas where interested parties may provide suggestions, comments, and other information.
Written comments and information are requested by May 14, 2015.
Comments must identify the docket number EERE-2015-BT-BC-0001 and may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Further instructions, including the use of topic identifiers, are provided in the
A link to the docket Web page can be found under
For further information on how to submit a comment, review comments received, or otherwise participate in the public comment process, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards by phone at (202) 586-2945 or email:
Jeremiah Williams; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
For legal matters, contact: Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-33, 1000 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-0669, Email:
Section 307(b) of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA, Pub. L. 102-486), as amended, directs DOE to support voluntary building energy codes by periodically reviewing the technical and economic basis of the voluntary building energy codes and to “seek adoption of all technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures; and . . . otherwise participate in any industry process for review and modification of such codes” (42 U.S.C. 6836(b)(2) and (3)). DOE participates in the development of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), maintained by the International Code Council (ICC) for residential and commercial buildings, and in the development of Standard 90.1, maintained by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for commercial buildings.
This Request for Information (RFI) seeks public input on revisions to DOE's established methodologies for assessing the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to residential and commercial building energy codes and new editions of such codes. DOE has previously expressed interest in receiving information surrounding the costs and benefits associated with building energy codes (78 FR 47677 and 79 FR 27778). The current request for information will ensure that DOE is able to maintain appropriate means of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of building energy codes, including the selection of appropriate data sources and methods to analyze the economic impacts associated with code updates. This notice is intended to communicate relevant updates to the general public and solicit feedback on the specific analysis parameters subject to revision. In addition, this request provides a broader opportunity for input on DOE's designated methods. DOE uses these methodologies to inform its participation in the update processes of the IECC, ASHRAE Standard 90.1, and other building energy codes—both in developing proposals and in assessing the proposals of others, when necessary. DOE also uses these methodologies in assessing the cost-effectiveness of new code editions. DOE evaluates energy codes and code proposals based on life-cycle cost analysis, accounting for energy savings, incremental investment for energy efficiency measures, and other economic impacts.
The value of future savings and costs are discounted to a present value, with improvements deemed cost-effective when the net savings is positive. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a proposed code change or a newly revised code involves
1. Estimating the
2. estimating the
3. calculating the corresponding
These steps are detailed in the established residential and commercial methodologies, as referenced later in this RFI (see the
• Scenario 1 (also referred to as the
• Scenario 2: (also referred to as the
• Scenario 3: (also referred to as the
For the commercial methodology DOE is seeking public input only on the method and sources for parameters of Scenario 2, as the method and parameters for Scenario 1 are established by federal regulation, and the method and parameters for Scenario 3 are established by the ASHRAE 90.1 SSPC. DOE intends to continue to rely on Scenarios 1 and 3 since they are required for federal projects and addenda to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, respectively.
In preparation for this RFI, DOE reviewed the established residential and commercial methodologies and is proposing revisions. These revisions are limited to minor clarifications and attempts to streamline certain portions; the overall methodology remains unchanged in terms of procedure and content. For brevity, only the proposed revisions to the methodologies are discussed here; the entire residential methodology and commercial methodology are available for review, as referenced below (see
The focus of this section of the RFI is residential buildings, which DOE defines in a manner consistent with the IECC—one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily residential buildings. DOE previously established a methodology for assessing
The established methodology for estimating energy savings of residential code changes remains unchanged except for the following proposed revisions:
Single-family and multifamily residential building prototypes are used to assess the energy and cost impact of residential energy codes.
The first proposed change to the DOE residential building prototypes surrounds the assumption for “area below roofs/ceilings” for both single- and multifamily buildings. DOE proposes to modify the former value of 70 percent with attic (and the remaining 30 percent cathedral) to a revised value of 100 percent with attic. This change is intended to simplify the energy modeling process. The second proposed change focuses on the “internal gains” assumption for the single-family prototype, which is revised from a value of 91,436 Btu/day to 87,332 Btu/day. This change updates the previous assumption to align with Section 405 of the 2015 IECC. The third and final change modifies the “window area” assumption for the multifamily prototype, revised from a value of 14 percent relative to
DOE is seeking public input on these proposed revisions (Topic R01). Note that the non-revised content in the tables remains unchanged from the established methodology.
DOE will continue to draw from a set of 119 climate locations comprised of one representative location for each climate zone and moisture regime within each state. The overall set of climate locations are described in the established residential methodology. However, DOE is proposing to apply fewer climate locations when a subset of locations is sufficient for specific analyses, such as DOE has applied in the past as part of its analysis surrounding commercial buildings.
In conducting national analyses, which tend to be less sensitive to regional variations in climates, DOE intends to utilize one representative weather location per climate zone, including a separate location for each moisture regime. This approach is intended to conserve time and computing resources in situations where regional variation does not significantly impact overall findings. In addition, DOE may apply this approach in performing analyses that are preliminary or limited in nature, such as in analyzing individual code change proposals. The simulation results will be weighted to the national level using weighting factors from the established methodology rolled up to the national climate zone level for consistency between the two schemes. For aggregating results across foundation, heating system and building types the method will be similar to the current approach, but with fewer discrete weather locations.
A similar approach will be followed for state-level or other regional analyses, with DOE utilizing those climate locations (from the overall set) that are representative of the geographic area being analyzed. This selection will often include a number of distinct locations that adequately capture regional variation within the scope of the analysis, such as within a target state. In addition, the selection of locations in conducting state-level analyses may be modified based on what is deemed credible by the target audience. For analyses targeting a particular climate zone, results will be weighted using the regime weight within the climate zone.
The weather locations and resulting overall location construction weights for the national climate zones are summarized in Table II.3. DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of using fewer weather stations for national and preliminary analysis (Topic R02).
DOE noticed typographical errors in two equations published in the established methodology where a term was not reproduced as intended. The corrected Equations 1 and 2 are included below (missing term is underlined):
DOE is not seeking public input on the changes to Equations 1 and 2.
The focus of this section of the RFI is commercial buildings, which DOE defines in a manner consistent with both ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the IECC—buildings except one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and low-rise (three stories or less above grade) multifamily residential buildings. DOE has developed a consistent and transparent methodology for assessing the cost-effectiveness of commercial code change proposals and for assessing the cost-effectiveness of new code versions.
ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has updated its representative cities based on changes in ASHRAE Standard 169-2013 (
The proposed commercial methodology includes an adjustment to the life-cycle cost for the impact of property taxes. This is a change from the established commercial method that was used for the state cost-effectiveness analyses of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 analysis.
This proposed change from prior commercial cost-effectiveness practice to include property tax impacts makes the commercial method more robust and further consistent with the residential method. DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of the addition of property tax impact analysis to Scenario 2 of the cost-effectiveness methodology. (Topic C01).
There are common issues for both residential and commercial buildings related to cost estimate development when there are multiple paths to compliance and regarding the preferred sources of economic and other parameters.
As discussed in both methodologies, DOE anticipates that some new code provisions may have significantly different first costs depending on unrelated aesthetic choices or exceptions and flexibility options in the code. For example, a requirement for window shading could be met with interior blinds, electro-chromatic windows, static exterior shades, or an active tracking exterior shading system. Or, a reasonable window-to-wall ratio may be set as a baseline for standard efficiency heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) equipment, and exceeding that ratio may require more expensive higher efficiency HVAC equipment. It has been suggested, for example, that a future code may replace or supplement independent prescriptive requirements with options expected to provide similar energy cost and performance.
For any of these situations with multiple compliance paths, DOE intends to focus on the least-cost approach deemed to be effective and meet the code requirement rather than include the cost of niche or optional technology. For example, if there are multiple options available to comply with the code, and if one widely applicable and accepted option is found to be cost-effective, then the approach would be deemed cost-effective. This is because there is one cost-effective path through the code, and if a higher cost option is chosen, that is the developer or designer's choice.
Furthermore, some new code provisions may come with no specific construction changes at all, but rather be expressed purely as a performance requirement. DOE intends to evaluate any such code changes case-by-case and will search the research literature or conduct new analyses to determine the reasonable set of construction changes
DOE is seeking public input on the appropriateness of assessing the first cost where a new or changed requirement can be met by multiple construction approaches with varying cost implications (Topic G01).
The data sources and procedures for establishing economic parameters required for calculating the metrics described above are described in detail in the established residential methodology and established commercial methodology (see
DOE will accept information in response to this notice under the timeline provided in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
April 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
OPEN.
Agenda.
* NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
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.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address:
Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:
A.
B.
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
The docket for this
This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2183.06, OMB Control No.
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 14, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0858, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Dianne Lyles, Policy Training and Oversight Division, Office of Acquisition Management (3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-6111; fax number: 202-565-2553; email address:
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 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 14, 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 Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
Since the prior request for authorization, in Report and Order FCC No. 13-69, the Commission eliminated ONA narrowband (
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 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 14, 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 Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
The information collected through the carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.
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 an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on renewal of the information collection described below.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Gary A. Kuiper or John W. Popeo, at the FDIC address above.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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 the above-captioned 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 May 14, 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 Popeo, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:
1.
2.
A.
B.
C.
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by
• Agency Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email:
• FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
• Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
If the FR 3051 survey information is collected with a pledge of confidentiality for exclusively statistical purposes under Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), the information may not be disclosed by the Federal Reserve (or its contractor) in identifiable form, except with the informed consent of the respondent (CIPSEA 512(b), codified in notes to 44 U.S.C. 3501). Such information is therefore protected from disclosure under exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)). If a CIPSEA pledge is made, either by the Federal Reserve or by its contractor, the Federal Reserve must safeguard the information as required by CIPSEA and OMB guidance.
If the FR 3051 survey information is not being collected under CIPSEA, the ability of the Federal Reserve to maintain the confidentiality of information provided by respondents will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and depends on the type of information provided for a particular survey. In circumstances where identifying information is provided to the Federal Reserve, such information could possibly be protected from disclosure by FOIA exemptions 4 and 6.
Parts open to the public begin at 8:30 a.m. April 20, 2015.
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) GH15-002, Conducting Public Health Research in Georgia; FOA GH15-003, Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Uzbekistan; FOA GH15-006, Institutional Research Collaboration between the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; FOA GH15-007, Emerging Infectious Disease Detection in the Veterinary Public Health Sector in India; and FOA GH15-008, Conducting Operational Research to Identify Numbers and Rates, Determine Needs, and Integrate Services to Mitigate Morbidity and Mortality Among Internally Displaced Persons Affected by Emergencies.
Teleconference
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Conducting Public Health Research in Georgia, FOA GH15-002; Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Uzbekistan, FOA GH15-003; Institutional Research Collaboration between the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FOA GH15-006; Emerging Infectious Disease Detection in the Veterinary Public Health Sector in India, FOA GH15-007; and Conducting Operational Research to Identify Numbers and Rates, Determine Needs, and Integrate Services to Mitigate Morbidity and Mortality Among Internally Displaced Persons Affected by Emergencies, FOA GH15-008.”
Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Comparison and Validation of Screening Tools for Substance Use Among Pregnant Women, DP15-003, initial review.
This document corrects a notice that was published in the
M. Chris Langub, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F46, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770)488-3585,
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) PS15-001, Positive Health Check Evaluation, and FOA PS15-002, Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM.
Teleconference.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Positive Health Check Evaluation”, FOA PS15-001, and “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM”, FOA PS15-002.
Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Special Interest Projects (SIP) 15-001, Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, and SIP 15-003, Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors.
Teleconference.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Integrating Self-Management Education with Cancer Survivorship Care Planning, SIP 15-001, and Using Cancer Registry Data to Promote Proactive Tobacco Cessation among Adult Cancer Survivors, SIP 15-003.”
Brenda Colley Gilbert, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., Director, Extramural Research Program Operations and Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-80, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6295,
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:
Patriots Plaza I, 395 E Street SW., Room 9000, Washington, DC 20201.
Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 33 people. If you wish to attend in person or by webcast, please see the NIOSH Web site to register (
Teleconference is available toll-free; please dial (888) 397-9578, Participant Pass Code 63257516.
The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and by delegation the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Sections 301 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The Board of Scientific Counselors provides guidance to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on research and prevention programs. Specifically, the Board provides guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings and disseminating results. The Board evaluates the degree to which the activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: (1)
NIOSH Director's update, intramural and extramural research integration at NIOSH, metrics to assess NIOSH research programs, NIOSH Center for Direct Reading and Sensor Technologies, occupational exposure limit issues, and cumulative risk assessment.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. An agenda is also posted on the NIOSH Web site (
John Decker, Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E20, Atlanta, GA 30329-4018, telephone (404) 498-2500, fax (404) 498-2526.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Respondents: States, the District of Columbia, and Territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianna Islands.
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of Tribal Consultation.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will host a Tribal Consultation to consult on ACF programs and tribal priorities.
May 21, 2015.
901 D Street SW., Washington, DC.
Lillian A. Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans at 202-401-5590, by email at
On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Tribal Consultation.” The President stated that his Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications, including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.
The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.
HHS has taken its responsibility to comply with Executive Order 13175 very seriously over the past decade, including the initial implementation of a Department-wide policy on tribal consultation and coordination in 1997, and through multiple evaluations and revisions of that policy, most recently in 2010. ACF has developed its own agency-specific consultation policy that complements the Department-wide efforts.
The ACF Tribal Consultation Session will begin the morning of May 21, 2015, and continue throughout the day until all discussions have been completed. To help all participants to prepare for this consultation, planning teleconference calls will be held on:
The call-in number is: 866-769-9393. The passcode is: 4449449#.
The purpose of the planning calls will be to identify individuals who will provide testimony to ACF, solicit for tribal moderators, and identify specific topics of interest so we can ensure that all appropriate individuals are present.
Testimonies are to be submitted no later than May 15, 2015, to: Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447,
To register for the Consultation, please visit:
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.
CDR Jacqueline Rodrigue, M.S.W., Office of Quality Improvement, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15-74, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-2339.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, codified at 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as necessary or appropriate. The agenda, webinar information, Committee Roster, Charter, presentations, and other meeting materials will be located on the Advisory Committee's Web site at
More information on the Advisory Committee is available at
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
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 this Information Collection Request must be received no later than June 15, 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.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement (CA) applications for the Injury Prevention Program (IPP) for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). The program is authorized under 25 U.S.C. 13, Snyder Act, and 42 U.S.C., Section 301(a), Public Health Service Act, as amended. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.284.
Injuries are the single leading cause of death for AI/AN between the ages of 1 and 44 years. (Trends in Indian Health 2002-2003 Edition, IHS, Division of Program Statistics). Depending on the type of injury, AI/AN experience injury mortality rates that are 2.5 to 8.7 times higher than the U.S. all races rates. This funding opportunity was developed by the IHS Injury Prevention Program to address the disparity in injury rates by encouraging tribes to implement injury prevention programs and projects based on evidence-based, effective strategies.
Injury prevention evidence-based, effective strategies are prevention methods that have been scientifically proven to prevent injuries. Injury prevention programs and projects are most effective when based on these model practices. Though not repeatedly scientifically proven to be effective, the use of promising and innovative injury prevention strategies is also recommended. For more information on evidence-based injury prevention resources see:
Comprehensive injury prevention programs use a public health approach to employ strategies that address education, policy development with enforcement, and environmental modifications. Programs use various combinations of effective strategies to ensure they are effective and sustainable. A single focus with only education is not an effective strategy.
The IHS IPP priorities are prevention of (1) motor vehicle crash related injuries; and (2) unintentional fall injuries. For AI/AN, motor vehicle-related injuries and deaths are the leading cause of disability, years of potential life lost, and medical and societal costs. Unintentional elder fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalizations in AI/AN communities. Among older adults, falls are the leading cause of both fatal and nonfatal injuries (
The purpose of this IHS funding opportunity is to promote the capability of Tribes, Indian organizations and urban Indian organizations to build and maintain sustainable, effective injury prevention programs. Tribal ownership and management of injury prevention programs and projects:
(a) increase the understanding of the injury problem by Tribes/Indian organizations/urban Indian organizations;
(b) promote the implementation of effective strategies to prevent injuries in Tribal communities; and
(c) improve injury prevention partnerships.
The IHS will accept IPP applications in either of the two categories:
(A) Part I—Injury Prevention Programs applicants: These are new applicants who have not previously received IHS Tribal Injury Prevention CA Part I funding. Applicants must meet the IHS minimum user population of 2,500. The population limit is set by the IHS IPP. IHS user population is defined as AI/AN people who have utilized services funded by the IHS at least once during the last three-year period.
(B) Part II—IPP Effective Strategy Projects applicants. This grant opportunity is available to any applicant regardless of whether or not they have previously received IHS Injury Prevention CA Part I or II funding. There is no IHS user population requirement.
Applicants will only be issued one award: Either for Part 1—Injury Prevention Programs or Part II—IPP Effective Strategy Projects. Applications should be sure to respond to the appropriate “Criteria” under Section V—Application Review Information.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2015 is approximately $1,800,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $20,000 and $100,000. The amount of funding available for awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Approximately thirty awards will be issued under this program announcement. Injury Prevention applicants may apply for more than one of the areas of funding but only one will be awarded. Part I—Five-Year Injury Prevention Programs: up to $100,000 will be awarded to each successful applicant the first year and up to $80,000 will be awarded each of the remaining four years (up to 15 awards). Part II—Five Effective Strategy Projects: up to $20,000, for each of the five years, will be awarded to successful applicants (up to 15 awards).
The project period will be for five years and will run consecutively from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2020 for both the Part I and Part II.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under Section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under Section B as stated:
The IHS IPP substantial involvement includes providing technical assistance to the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinators in program planning, implementation, and evaluation. Technical assistance includes the following which will be supported by an outside contractor:
IHS will assign an IHS Injury Prevention Specialist (Area, District) or designee to serve as the Project Officer (technical advisor/monitor) for the Tribal Injury Prevention Program. Responsibilities of the IHS Project Officers are described below:
(1) Assist the grantee in determining the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator position qualifications and job descriptions and assist in the selection of the Coordinator.
(2) Assist the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator with decisions regarding implementation of program activities, including creation of injury data systems (collection, quality, analysis, and reporting), use of public information materials, and quality assurance (adherence to evidence-based practice methods).
(3) Monitor the overall progress of the grantees' program sites and their adherence to the terms and conditions of the CA.
(4) Review continuation applications and recommend approval or disapproval.
(5) Provide guidance for meeting deadlines of required progress and financial reports.
(6) Support contractor oversight by participating in site visits and conference calls when possible.
(7) Provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned, and new findings.
(8) Recommend training and continuing education courses to develop the Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator's competencies.
IHS will assign an IHS IPP Specialist or designee to serve as the local Project Officer. Responsibilities of the IHS local Project Officers are described below:
(1) Provide guidance to the grantee involving strategy, injury data (collection, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of findings), use of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, training, reports, budget and evaluation.
(2) Review continuation applications and recommend approval or disapproval.
Technical assistance will also include the following which will be supported by an outside contractor:
(1) Schedule bi-annual conference calls for technical assistance.
(2) Assist grantee in writing progress reports.
(3) Disseminate injury prevention best practices guidance.
(4) Provide training to grantees.
Responsibilities of the grantee are described below:
The grantee will:
(1) Hire a full time Tribal Injury Prevention Coordinator.
a. Must be full-time (40 hours/week) and solely dedicated to the
b. Cannot be part-time or split duties or other duties as assigned.
c. May be located within an urban Indian health organization, Tribal health program (or Tribal Highway Safety) or community-based Tribal program.
(2) Develop and maintain an ongoing injury data system. Data will be used for priority setting, program planning and evaluation of interventions.
(3) Develop a five-year plan based on sound morbidity/mortality injury data and implement effective strategies. The five-year plan will:
a. Contain a logic model approach to address the formative, process, impact and outcome evaluation with timeline; action steps and benchmarks.
b. Describe how the tribe will maintain the IPP after the five-year funding cycle.
(4) Incorporate injury prevention evidence-based effective strategies that align with the IHS Injury Prevention priorities (motor vehicle and unintentional fall injury prevention) and/or local Tribal injury priorities based on sound injury mortality and morbidity data.
(5) Tailor the IPP program and other organizations' educational materials with culturally relevant information to promote and empower communities to take action in injury prevention.
(6) Lead, develop, or participate in a multidisciplinary injury prevention coalition to share resources and expertise in injury prevention, and provide oversight in the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects.
(7) Attend the mandatory annual grantee workshop.
(8) Participate in IHS/contractor site visits, conference calls and webinars.
(9) Successfully complete the IHS Injury Prevention core training courses—IP Introduction, Intermediate, and IP Fellowship.
(10) Successfully complete certification trainings necessary for the IP positions such as Child Passenger Safety Technician, Tai Chi Instructor, etc.
The grantee will:
(1) Work in partnership with the IHS in decisions involving strategy, injury data (collection, analysis, reporting), use of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, training, reports, budget and evaluation.
(2) Provide a logic model plan for the Part II effective strategies project. The logic model will address the stages of the project development implementation and evaluation with proposed timeline.
(3) Develop culturally-competent, project-related information to educate and empower communities to take action in injury prevention.
(4) Develop a project evaluation plan with baseline data, timeline and outcome measures.
(5) Participate in IHS/contractor conference calls and webinars.
To be eligible for this “New and Competing Continuation Announcement,” an applicant must:
Be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603:
i. An Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14);
ii. A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26);
iii. An Urban Indian organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29).
Applicants must provide proof of non-profit status with the application,
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
Your official signed resolution can be mailed to the DGM, Attn: Pallop Chareonvootitam, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP Suite 360, Rockville, MD 20852. Applicants submitting Tribal resolutions after or aside from the required online electronic application submission must ensure that the information is received by the IHS/DGM. It is highly recommended that the documentation be sent by a delivery method that includes delivery confirmation and tracking. Please contact Pallop Chareonvootitam by telephone at 301-443-2195 prior to the review date regarding submission questions.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114.
The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).
• Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 15 pages).
○ Background information on the Tribe or organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.
• Tribal Resolution or Tribal Letter of Support (Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization).
• Letter of Support from Organization's Board of Directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-133 required Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.
Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the ORC in becoming more familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first fifteen pages will be reviewed. The ten page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative:
Describe nature and extent of the injury problem of the Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization. Describe the public health approach to address the injury problem.
Succinctly describe how the Tribe, Indian organization or urban Indian organization plans to address the injury problems utilizing effective strategies, best, or promising practices.
Describe fully and clearly how the proposed interventions will impact in minimizing or reducing severe injuries in Tribal communities. Identify anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribal constituency.
Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 24 months.
Identify and describe significant program achievements associated with injury prevention initiatives. Provide the accomplishments of the goals established for the time frame, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.
Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months.
Provide an overview of significant injury prevention program activities associated with in reduction of severe injuries over the past 24 months. This section should address significant program activities including those related to the accomplishments listed in the previous section.
B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget narrative should not exceed five pages.
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Ms. Tammy Bagley, Acting Director of DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) be documented in writing (emails are acceptable),
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at:
• Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.
• If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to
• If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.
• Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this Funding Announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the IHS Injury Prevention Program will notify the applicant that the application has been received.
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on subawards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier subrecipients that no entity may receive a first-tier subaward unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights
Describe the need for funding and the injury problem using local IHS, state or national injury data in the community or target area. Describe the population to be served by the proposed program. Provide documentation that the target population is at least 2,500 people. (IHS User population is the ONLY acceptable source).
Goals and objectives must be clear and concise. Each program objective must be measurable, feasible and attainable to accomplish during the 5 year project period (SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). EXAMPLE: The Injury Prevention Tribal Team will increase adult safety belt use at Bob Cat Canyon community to 80% by April 2020.
The methods and staffing will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant provides: A description of proposed year one work plan that describes how the injury prevention effective strategy will be implemented using the public health approach (multi-year work plan should be included in appendix with actions steps, timeline, responsible person, etc.).
Describe how and when the program will be evaluated to show process, effectiveness, and impact. This includes, but is not limited to, what data will be collected to evaluate the success of the proposed program objectives.
A description of the roles of the Tribal involvement, organization, or agency and evidence of coordination, supervision, and degree of commitment (
Provide a detailed and justification of budget for the first 12-month budget periods. A budget summary should be included for each subsequent year (Year 2-Year 5).
If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget.
Include travel expenses for annual grantee workshop (mandatory participation) at a city location to be determined by IHS. Include airfare, per diem, mileage, etc. Note: The first and last annual grantee workshops are held in the Washington, DC area.
Describe the need for funding and the injury problem using local IHS, state, or national injury data in the community or target area.
Describe the Tribe's/Tribal organization's support for the proposed IP project.
Describe the population to be served by the proposed project (no minimum population requirement).
Goals and objectives must be clear and concise. Each objective must be measurable, feasible and attainable to accomplish during the 5 year project period (SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time specific). EXAMPLE: Child car seat use will be increased to 75% at Bobcat community by August 2020.
Coalition/Collaboration: Describe how the Tribe or urban community, the IHS and other organizations will collaborate on the project or conduct related activities. Provide a description of the roles of Tribal involvement, organization, or agency and evidence of coordination, supervision, and degree of commitment (
Describe how and when the project will be evaluated for program process, effectiveness, and impact. This includes, but is not limited to, what data will be collected to evaluate the success of the proposed program objectives.
A description of the roles of the key personnel in activities during the 5 year project(s) (
Projects must include a project narrative, 5 year categorical budget, and budget justification for each year of funding requested. If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget.
Projects requiring a second, third, fourth, and/or fifth year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 60, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their submitted application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved”, but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2015, the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS Grants Management Official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Cooperative Agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:
A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Reports must be submitted electronically via GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required semi-annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act subaward and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 subaward obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at:
Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY (301) 443-6394.
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
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 Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into NIH buildings. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) will hold a public forum to share information and facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions from stakeholders. Interested persons may attend in person or remotely. Time will be set aside for public statements and questions on the topics discussed.
Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM); email:
ICCVAM's goals include promotion of national and international partnerships between governmental and nongovernmental groups, including academia, industry, advocacy groups, and other key stakeholders. To foster these partnerships ICCVAM initiated annual public forums in 2014 to share information and facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions from stakeholders (79 FR 25136).
The second of these forums will be held on May 27, 2015, at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD. The meeting will begin with presentations by NICEATM and ICCVAM members on current activities related to the development and validation of alternative test methods and approaches for assessing acute systemic toxicity, endocrine activity, vaccine safety, and skin sensitization potential, as well as updates on ICCVAM processes. Following each presentation, there will be an opportunity for participants to ask questions of the ICCVAM members. Instructions for submitting questions will be provided to remote participants prior to the webcast. The agenda also includes time for participants to make public oral statements to inform ICCVAM on topics relevant to its mission and current activities.
Visitor and security information for visitors to NIH is available at
Persons wishing to present oral statements are encouraged to indicate the topic(s) on which they plan to speak on the registration form. They should also provide a copy of their statement to Dr. Elizabeth Maull at email:
Registration for oral public statements will be available onsite, although onsite registration and time allotted for these statements may be limited based on the number of individuals who register to make statements and available time. If registering onsite and reading from written text, please bring 20 copies of the statement for distribution and to supplement the record.
In addition to in-person oral statements at the meeting, public statements may be presented by teleconference line. Directions for accessing the meeting by teleconference line will be provided to registered participants prior to the meeting date.
Responses to this notice are voluntary. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in statements submitted in response to this notice or presented during the meeting. This request for input is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the U.S. Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to the request. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for its use of that information.
NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts and publishes analyses and evaluations of data from new, revised, and alternative testing approaches. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved testing approaches applicable to the needs of U.S. federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative testing approaches for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about NICEATM can be found at
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0005, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This information collection is mandatory for foreign air carriers and must be submitted prior to entry into the United States.
Send your comments by June 15, 2015.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Additionally, foreign air carriers must maintain these records, as well as training records for crew members and individuals performing security-related functions, and make them available to TSA for inspection upon request. TSA will continue to collect information to determine foreign air carrier compliance with other requirements of 49 CFR part 1546. TSA estimates that there will be approximately 170 respondents to the information collection, with an annual burden estimate of 1,029,010 hours.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0041 abstracted below, to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently-approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send comments by May 14, 2015. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
On September 27, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB Control Number 1652-0041—National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) Handler Training Assessment Survey. The collection approval period expires on September 30, 2015.
TSA is requesting an extension of the collection due to the upcoming expiration date. However, since its approval, the collection's name has undergone multiple name changes. As noted in the previously filed 60-day Notice, the name of the collection was initially changed from National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP) Handler Training Assessment Survey to TSA OLE/FAMS Canine Training and Evaluation Section (CTES) End of Course Level 1 Critique.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
On April 3, 2015, HUD published a
Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone number 202-402-5132 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
For copies of the proposed forms and other available information contact Carissa Janis, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410 by email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The Summary Budget and the Annual Program Budget make up the budget of the grantee's annual extension request. Together the forms provide itemized expenses for anticipated program costs and a matrix of budgeted yearly costs. The budget forms show the services funded through the grant and demonstrate how matching funds, participant fees, and grant funds will be used in tandem to operate the grant program. Field staff will approve the annual budget and request annual extension funds according to the budget. Field staff can also determine if grantees are meeting statutory and regulatory requirements through the evaluation of this budget.
HUD will use the Payment Voucher to monitor use of grant funds for eligible activities over the term of the grant. The Grantee may similarly use the Payment Voucher to track and record their requests for payment reimbursement for grant-funded activities.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the
Please submit applications as soon as possible, but no later than May 14, 2015.
Marjorie George, Senior Housing Program Officer, Office of Housing Counseling, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103; telephone number 901-544-4228 (this is not a toll-free number); email
Subtitle D of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010)) (Dodd-Frank Act) mandates that the Secretary shall appoint an advisory committee to provide advice to the Office of Housing Counseling (OHC). The value of the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) will be to advise the OHC to meet its mission to provide individuals and families with the knowledge they need to obtain, sustain, and improve their housing through a strong national network of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and HUD-certified counselors. The HCFAC, however, shall have no role in reviewing or awarding of OHC housing counseling grants and procurement contracts.
The HCFAC shall consist of not more than 12 individuals. The membership will equally represent the mortgage and real estate industry, consumers and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Each member shall be appointed in his or her individual capacity for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed at the discretion of the Secretary. Except that of the 12 members first appointed to the HCFAC, 4 shall be appointed for an initial term of 1 year and 4 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.
The HCFAC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), and Presidential Memorandum “Final Guidance on Appointments of Lobbyists to Federal Boards and Commissions,” dated June 18, 2010, along with any relevant guidance published in the
.
After all applications have been reviewed, HUD will publish a notice in the
The estimated number of meetings anticipated within a fiscal year is 2. Additional meetings may be held as needed to render advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Housing Counseling. All meetings will be announced by notice in the
HUD is seeking applications for representatives from the mortgage and real estate industry, including consumers and HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. Applicants must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be employees of the U.S. Government. All applicants will be serving in their “individual capacity” and not in a “representative capacity,” therefore, no Federally-registered lobbyists may serve on the HCFAC.
Nominations to the HCFAC must be submitted on the application available on the Office of Housing Counseling's Web site at:
• Name, title, and organization of the nominee and a description of the organization, sector or other interest of the nominee;
• Nominee's mailing address, email address, and telephone number;
• A statement summarizing the nominee's qualifications (including unique experiences, skills and knowledge you will bring to the HCFAC) and reasons why the nominee should be appointed to the HCFAC;
• A statement confirming that the nominee is not a registered federal lobbyist; and
• A statement agreeing to submit to any pre-appointment screenings HUD might require of Special Government Employees, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202.
Applications should be submitted to Marjorie George, Senior Housing Program Officer, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Counseling, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Memphis, TN 38103. All deliveries should be addressed to Marjorie George at the above address. Applications submitted via email should be addressed to:
HCFAC members will be required to adhere to the conflict of interest rules applicable to Special Government Employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 202(a). The rules include relevant provisions in 18 U.S.C. related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635), and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731). Therefore, applicants will be required to submit to pre-appointment screenings relating to identity of interest and financial interests that HUD might require as shown above. If selected, HCFAC members will also be asked to complete form OGE Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report).
Please note this Notice is not intended to be the exclusive method by which HUD will solicit nominations and expressions of interest to identify qualified candidates; however, all candidates for membership on the HCFAC will be subject to the same evaluation criteria.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5564 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
(1) Lexington Housing Authority (LHA), Lexington, Kentucky;
(2) Louisville Metro Housing Authority (LMHA), Louisville, Kentucky;
(3) San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA), San Antonio, Texas; and
(4) District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), Washington, DC
Data collection will include the families that are part of the treatment and control groups, as well as PHA staff. Data for this evaluation will be gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews and discussions, direct observation, and analysis of administrative records. The work covered under this information request is for data collection proposed under the first of two required OMB submissions of the Task Order 2 of the Rent Reform Demonstration.
This includes:
• Public Housing Authority Staff: Up to 44 (
• Families with housing vouchers participating in the Rent Reform Demonstration, up to 80.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
The automated form HUD-52681-B (Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions and Operating Statement Housing Assistance Payments Program Supplemental Reporting Form) is entered by the PHA into the Voucher Management System (VMS) on a monthly basis during each calendar year to track leasing and HAP expenses by voucher category, as well as data concerning fraud recovery, Family Self-Sufficiency escrow accounts, PHA-held equity, etc. The inclusion, change, and deletion of the fields mentioned below will improve the allocation of funds and allow the PHAs and the Department to realize a more complete picture of the PHAs' resources and program activities, promote financial accountability, and improve the PHAs' ability to provide assistance to as many households as possible while maximizing budgets. In addition, the fields will be crucial to the identification of actual or incipient financial problems that will ultimately affect funding for program participants. The automated form HUD-52681-B is also utilized by the same programs as the manual forms.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will meet as indicated below:
April 30, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and May 1, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 300 NW Franklin Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Daily sessions may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule.
Tara Martinak, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573-4519, or email
The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area; recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs; and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area. Agenda items for the April 30-May 1 session may include an update on the Steens Mountain Comprehensive Recreation Plan decision; welcome and orientation for new members; change of Designated Federal Official discussion and update; collaborative processes conversation; and update on the National Landscape Conservation System sign plan and strategy; and, regular business items such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, member round-table, and planning the next meeting's agenda. A public comment period will be available each day of each meeting. The public is welcome to attend all sessions. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of five minutes.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 21, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 29, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of an additional proposed contract action pending through December 2015. This notice is in addition to the Quarterly Status Report of Water Service, Repayment, and Other Water-Related Contract Actions which was published in the
Information pertaining to the additional contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the Pacific Northwest Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Ephrata Field Office, P.O. Box 815, Ephrata, Washington 98823; telephone (509) 754-0227.
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007; telephone 303-445-2888.
The following information is added to the list of proposed or amendatory contract actions in the Pacific Northwest Region:
10. East Columbia Basin Irrigation District (District), Columbia Basin Project, Washington: Long-term contract to renew master water service contract No. 14-06-100-9165, as supplemented, to authorize the District to deliver a base quantity of up to 90,000 acre-feet of Columbia Basin Project water annually to up to 30,000 First Phase Continuation Acres located within the District, and continue delivery of additional water to land irrigated under the District's repayment contract during the peak period of irrigation water use annually.
Except for the above addition, the January 20, 2015,
U.S. International Trade Commission
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 10, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. of Bloomfield, Connecticut. An amended complaint was filed on March 24, 2015. A supplement to the amended complaint was filed on April 3, 2013. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain variable valve actuation devices and automobiles containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,397 (“the '397 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,474,277 (“the '277 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,883,492 (“the '492 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,059,282 (“the '282 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,776,738 (“the '738 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,820,276 (“the '276 patent”). The complaint, as amended, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, as amended, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain variable valve actuation devices and automobiles containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 32 and 33 of the '397 patent; claim 36 of the '277 patent; claims 38-42, 44, and 45 of the '492 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 15-18, 25, and 27-30 of the '282 patent; claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13-22, 31, 35-50, and 53-56 of the '738 patent; and claims 1-10, 17, 19-23, and 26-28 of the '276 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc., 22 East Dudley Town Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: FCA US LLC, 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326.
FCA México, S.A. de C.V., Prol. Paseo de la Reforma 1240, Desarrollo Santa Fe, México D.F.
FCA Melfi S.p.A., Localitá San Nicola-Zona Industriale Snc, 85025 Melfi Potenza, Italy.
FCA Serbia d.o.o. Kragujevac, 4, Kosovska Str., Kragujevac 34000, Serbia.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Fiat House, 240 Bath Road, Slough SL1 4DX, United Kingdom.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint, as amended, and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, as amended, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint, as amended, and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint, as amended, and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 15, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lynn Langton, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
On April 6, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree modification with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in the lawsuit entitled
In 2011, the Court entered a consent decree in that case under which Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (“LFUCG”) agreed to perform sanitary sewer remedial measures pursuant to the sanitary sewer system and waste water treatment plant remedial measures plan under certain deadlines. The modification proposes to extend those deadlines to December 31, 2026, in light of the expanded scope and cost of those remedial measures.
The deadlines for remedial measures for LFUCG's sanitary sewer system currently range from September 10, 2023 to September 9, 2026. The Consent Decree currently provides for staggered deadlines depending on which of three groups the remedial measures projects were proposed in, and also whether the projects are associated with a waste water treatment plant upgrade. The effect of this proposed modification, which would set a single completion deadline for all projects, would be an extension which ranges in length from 113 days, to 3 years, 112 days, depending on the project at issue.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree modification. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree modification may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On April 8, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in the lawsuit entitled
The Complaint alleges that the Missouri Highway Transportation Commission (MHTC) violated the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to it under of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $14.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Cyber Division (CyD), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 15, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Paul Konschak, FBI Cyber Division, Cyber Outreach Section, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20535 (facsimile: 703-633-5796).
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announces the availability of approximately $10 million to award approximately eight grants of up to $1.2 million to State Workforce Agencies (SWA) for the Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI).
The purpose of WDQI is to support the development and expansion of State workforce longitudinal administrative databases over a three-year grant period. Collecting longitudinal workforce and education data will provide a comprehensive picture of workers' earnings throughout their careers. Through analysis, these data will demonstrate the relationship between education and training programs, as well as the additional contribution of the provision of other employment services. These grants will help support the emphasis on accountability and transparency that is a key feature of the recently enacted WIOA and will be funded through section 171(c)(2) of WIA and section 169 of WIOA. These grants will also help support the implementation of WIOA by connecting the data infrastructure across programs, enabling states to meet the performance accountability requirements under WIOA.
The complete FOA and any subsequent FOA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is May 6, 2015. Applications must be received no later than 4:00:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Linda K. Forman, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3416.
The Grant Officer for this FOA is Steven Rietzke
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines.
All comments must be received on or before June 15, 2015.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Under section 101(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act), the Secretary may by rule in accordance with procedures set forth in this section and in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code (without regard to any reference in such section to sections 556 and 557 of such title), develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines. In addition, section 303 requires that all underground coal mines be ventilated by mechanical ventilation equipment installed and operated in a manner approved by an authorized representative of the Secretary and such equipment be examined daily and a record be kept of such examination.
Underground coal mines usually present harsh and hostile working environments. The ventilation system is the most vital life support system in underground mining and a properly operating ventilation system is essential for maintaining a safe and healthful working environment. Lack of adequate ventilation in underground mines has resulted in fatalities from asphyxiation and explosions.
An underground mine is a maze of tunnels that must be adequately ventilated with fresh air to provide a safe environment for miners. Methane is liberated from the strata, and noxious gases and dusts from blasting and other mining activities may be present. The explosive and noxious gases and dusts must be diluted, rendered harmless, and carried to the surface by the ventilating currents. Sufficient air must be provided to maintain the level of respirable dust at or below specific exposure limits and air quality must be maintained in accordance with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) standards. Mechanical ventilation equipment of sufficient capacity must operate at all times while miners are in the mine. Ground conditions are subject to frequent changes, thus sufficient tests and examinations are necessary to ensure the integrity of the ventilation system and to detect any changes that may require adjustments in the system. Records of tests and examinations are necessary to ensure that the ventilation system is being maintained and that changes which could adversely affect the integrity of the system or the safety of the miners are not occurring. These examination, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of sections 75.310, 75.312, 75.342, 75.351, 75.360 through 75.364, 75.370, 75.371, and 75.382 also incorporate examinations of other critical aspects of the underground work environment such as roof conditions and electrical equipment which have historically caused numerous fatalities when not properly maintained and operated.
Section 75.362, On-shift Examinations, was revised at subsection 75.362(a)(2) and (g)(2)-(4) by MSHA's rule titled “Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including Continuous Personal Dust Monitors, ” published May 1, 2014. This rule also revised subsection 75.371(f) and (j).
Subsection 75.362(a)(2) requires that a person designated by the operator conduct an examination and record the results and the corrective actions taken to assure compliance with the respirable dust control parameters specified in the approved mine ventilation plan.
Under subsection 75.362(g)(2)(i), the certified person directing the on-shift examination must certify by initials, date, and time on a board maintained at the section load out or similar location showing that the examination was made prior to resuming production. No increased burden is estimated for section 75.362(g)(2)(i) in this Information Collection Request (ICR) because MSHA does not expect the burden to be different from the burden in existing section 75.362(g)(2)).
Under section 75.362(g)(2)(ii), the certified person directing the on-shift examination must verify, by initials, date and time, the record of the results of the examination required under section 75.362(a)(2) to assure compliance with the respirable dust control parameters specified in the mine ventilation plan. Further, section 75.362(g)(3) requires a mine foreman or equivalent mine official to countersign each examination record required under section 75.362(a)(2) after it is verified by the certified person under section 75.362(g)(2)(ii), and no later than the end of the mine foreman's or equivalent mine official's next regularly scheduled working shift. Section 75.362(g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3) are additional burdens that are accounted for in this ICR and 75.362(g)(2)(ii)(4) requires the records be retained at a surface location at the mine for at least 1 year and shall be made available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representative of miners.
Paragraph (a)(2) in section 75.370 (Mine ventilation plan; submission and approval) contains the burden for underground coal mine operators to submit mine ventilation plan revisions for District Manager approval. Each mine ventilation plan must include information that is specified by section 75.371 (Mine ventilation plan; contents).
Section 75.371(f) adds the following information that a mine operator must include in the mine ventilation plan: the minimum quantity of air that will be delivered to the working section for each mechanized mining unit (MMU), and the identification by make and model, of each different dust suppression system used on equipment on each working section, including: (1) The number, types, location, orientation, operating pressure, and flow rate of operating water sprays; (2) the maximum distance that ventilation control devices will be installed from each working face when mining or installing roof bolts in entries and crosscuts; (3) procedures for maintaining the roof bolter dust collection system in approved condition; and (4) recommended best work practices for equipment operators to minimize dust exposure.
Section 75.371(j) adds a requirement that for machine mounted dust collectors, the ventilation plan must include the type and size of dust collector screens used and a description of the procedures to be followed to properly maintain dust collectors used on the equipment.
Section 75.370(a)(2) requires all underground coal mine operators to submit revisions for mine ventilation plans to MSHA. The burden to submit the additional information required by section 75.371(f) and (j) as proposed revisions to the plan is accounted for in this package under section 75.370(a)(2). In addition, section 75.370(a)(3)(i) requires underground coal mine operators to notify the miners' representative at least 5 days prior to submission of mine ventilation plan revisions and, if requested, provide a copy of the revisions to the miners' representative at the time of notification. Section 75.370(a)(3)(iii) and (f)(3) require the operator to post a copy of the plan revisions, and section 75.370(f)(1) requires that the operator provide a copy of the revisions to the miners' representative, if requested. MSHA assumes that a copy of the revisions will be requested. The burdens for notification, providing requested copies, and posting associated with mine ventilation plan revisions resulting from section 75.371(f) and (j) are accounted for in this package under section 75.370(a)(3)(i), (f)(1), (a)(3)(iii), and (f)(3) respectively.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to 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,
This information collection request is available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License termination; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is noticing the termination of Facility Operating License No. R-28 for the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR). The NRC has terminated the license of the decommissioned FNR at the University of Michigan (UM or the licensee) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and has released the site for unrestricted use.
Notice of termination of Facility Operating License No. R-28 given on April 14, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0090 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.
Theodore Smith, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6721; email:
The FNR was operated by the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project (MMPP) at the UM as a memorial to students and alumni of the UM who served in World War II, including the 588 who died in the war. The MMPP's purpose has been to encourage and support research on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its social implications. The FNR was used by students, faculty and staff of the UM and other institutions and entities for research, experiments, and education classes. The FNR operations provided major assistance to a wide variety of research and educational programs, including neutron irradiation services, neutron beam port experimental facilities, classes in reactor operations, reactor related laboratory work, neutron activation analysis, isotope preparation, radiochemical preparation, gamma irradiation services, neutron radiography, testing services, and training programs. The licensee ceased operation of the facility in July 2003, and the fuel was subsequently removed in December 2003. The FNR underwent decommissioning activities from 2006 until 2012, followed by Final Status Surveys (FSS) in the winter of 2012 to assess the final radiological status of the facility.
The licensee submitted a proposed Decommissioning Plan (DP) on June 23, 2004 (ADAMS Package No. ML041810586) which was revised on January 10, 2006 (ADAMS Package No. ML060180411). The NRC approved the revised UM DP by Amendment No. 50 to License R-28, dated June 26, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061220260).
As required by the FNR DP, the UM submitted a Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP), in letters dated April 8, 2011, July 12, 2011, January 20, 2012, June 1, 2012, July 13, 2012, and September 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11119A004, ML11199A009, ML12025A125, ML12157A266, ML12199A018, and ML12264A562, respectively). Additional site characterization information for the FNR was provided on February 14, 2012, and September 18, 2012 (ADAMS Package No. ML120950629 and ADAMS Accession No. ML12264A064).
By letter dated October 25, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12293A302), the NRC reviewed the FSSP and determined that after a change to one paragraph, it was acceptable and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance” (ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243), and NUREG-1575, “Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual” (MARSSIM) (ADAMS Accession No. ML082470583). The UM provided the modified FSSP with the revised paragraph on November 2, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12312A130). The modification required an additional final status survey for three special areas of the FNR.
The UM provided a final status survey report (FSSR) which included information on the three special FSS
In a letter dated February 26, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14063A207), the UM confirmed that FNR systems and components had been transferred to the UM Broad Scope license No. 21-00215-04 by Amendment No. 102, in accordance with the approved DP, and requested termination of the FNR license. The Amendment No. 102 transfer was approved by the NRC, with a correction, on February 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14055A189). On June 23, 2014, NRC inspectors confirmed that site conditions were acceptable for license termination (ADAMS Accession No. ML14197A232). Additionally, NRC staff has reviewed the FNR FSSR. The FNR FSSR states that the criteria for termination set forth in FNR's license (R-28), and as established in its DP and FSSP have been satisfied.
The FSSR indicates that all but one of the individual radiological measurement determinations made throughout the facility for surface contamination (both total and removable) were found to be less than the criteria established in the DP, which is acceptable in accordance with the MARSSIM statistical methodology. Similarly, sample results from soil, and sediments were found to be less than the volumetric radionuclide concentration criteria established in the DP. Additionally, all the radioactive wastes have been removed from the facility. For these reasons, the NRC staff has determined that the survey results in the report comply with the criteria in the NRC approved DP and the release criteria in subpart E of part 20 of Title 10 of the
On August 9 through 11, 2011 the NRC conducted an on-site inspection of the decommissioning activities at the FNR. The NRC inspector evaluated decommissioning performance and conducted independent radiation surveys and soil sampling, with soil sample evaluation of the NRC samples by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU). The inspection was an examination of UM's licensed activities as they relate to radiation safety and to compliance with the Commission's regulations and the license conditions, including the DP and FSSP. The inspection consisted of observations by the inspectors, interviews with personnel, and a review of procedures and records and acquisition of split samples. As a result of this inspection, a Notice of Violation was issued to the UM for failing to independently monitor or audit either decommissioning operations or the quality assurance program annually as required (ADAMS Accession No. ML11299A076). This violation has been resolved by the UM reinitiating audits and quality assurance reviews as part of semi-annual Decommissioning Review Committee meetings, as documented in an October 10, 2012 NRC inspection report. (ADAMS Accession No. ML12284A282). The final report from ORAU of the results of the soil sample analysis was provided to the NRC on August 23, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112420852). One of the soil samples exceeded the FNR DP's soil derived concentration guideline level for Cobalt-60, which was addressed by the UM subsequently remediating all the soil from the cavity area, and resampling as part of the final status survey.
At the request of NRC staff, on January 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15020A725), UM provided the results of eight additional soil samples, taken to a depth of thirteen feet, in the area where stockpiled soils were reused to refill the excavation in the former storage ports area of the FNR. All samples were below minimum detectable activity and well below the soil derived concentration guideline levels, which demonstrates that the reused stockpiled soils are acceptable for unrestricted release. Additionally, three split samples were sent to ORAU for laboratory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML15030A311). The results contained in the analytical report are consistent with UM's report.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the NRC staff has concluded that the UM FNR in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been decommissioned in accordance with the approved DP and that the FSSR and associated documentation demonstrates that the facilities and site may be released in accordance with the criteria for license termination in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. Further, on the basis of the decommissioning activities carried out by the UM, the NRC's review of the licensee's FSSR, the results of the NRC inspections conducted at the reactor facility, and the results of confirmatory lab analyses, the NRC has concluded that the decommissioning process is complete and the facilities and sites may be released for unrestricted use.
Therefore, Facility Operating License No. R-28 is terminated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 30 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Ruth Reyes, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3249; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14350B104.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14351A256 and ML14351A271, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14351A250 and ML14351A252, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated July 29, 2014, and as supplemented by the letter dated November 5, 2014, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D as part of license amendment request 14-002, “Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14350B104, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 Figures 2.2.4-1, 3.3-1 through 10, 3.3-11A, 3.3-11B, and 3.3-12 through 14; Tables: 2.2.2-3, 2.2.3-4, 2.2.3-6, 2.2.4-1, 2.2.4-4, 2.2.5-5, 2.3.2-1, 2.3.2-2, 2.3.6-1, 2.3.6-4, 2.3.10-1, 2.3.10-4, 2.3.14-2, 2.6.3-3, 2.6.3-4, 3.3-1, 3.3-6, 2.1.3-4, 2.5.1-2 and 3.7-2; and Sections 2.6.3 and 3.3, as described in the licensee's request dated July 29, 2014, and supplemented on November 5, 2014. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 30, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession Number ML14350B104), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated July 29, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated November 5, 2014, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on July 29, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated November 5, 2014. The exemption and amendment were issued on February 13, 2015 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML14350B012).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 19, 2015 to April 1, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on March 31, 2015.
Comments must be filed by May 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 15, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0088 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
• 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.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0088, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing 4-hour allowed outage time for an inoperable reactor enclosure secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment vacuum is below the required limit are acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to establish the required secondary containment vacuum. This condition is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring the condition to be momentary or under administrative control such that the conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant; and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not met. Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment is open is acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to create a lower pressure in the secondary containment than in the outside environment if required. This condition is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring the condition to be under administrative control such that the conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. The ability to open secondary containment access openings under administrative control, even if it means the secondary containment boundary is temporarily not intact, is acceptable due to the low probability of an event that requires secondary containment during the short time in which the secondary containment is open and the presence of administrative controls to rapidly close the opening.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical
The Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation is not an accident initiator and therefore addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications does not increase the probability of an accident. Addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications will bring it under the controls and testing requirements of the Technical Specifications. The proposed change will not increase the consequences of previously-evaluated accidents because the inclusion of these instruments in the technical specification improves their reliability to perform during a postulated accident. Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation activities. Since the Alternative Source Term amendment was previously approved, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
Removal of license Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled is an administrative change and thus this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled.
The proposed Technical Specification changes and Additional Condition changes and the resulting instrument upgrades do not create new failure modes or mechanisms and do not change plant conditions from which some new material interaction may create a new or different type of accident. Thus, the Technical Specification and license Additional Condition changes do not create new failure modes or mechanisms, nor do they generate new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is an administrative change and thus does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled.
Addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications will bring it under the controls and testing requirements of the Technical Specifications. The proposed change will not increase the consequences of previously evaluated accidents because instrument upgrade and the inclusion of these instruments in the Technical Specifications improve their reliability to perform during a postulated accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation activities. Since the Alternative Source Term [amendment] was previously approved, the changes proposed in this license amendment do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is administrative in nature and thus does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP provides for protection of non-radiological environmental values during operation of the nuclear facility.
The proposed changes do not have any impact on structures, systems and components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect on plant operations. The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators, or analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed changes do not result in the addition or removal of any equipment.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature.
There is no change to any design basis, licensing basis or safety limit, and no change to any parameters; consequently no safety margins are affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
As indicated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Subsection 3.8.3.1, the containment internal structures and associated modules support the reactor coolant system components and related piping systems and equipment. The increase in tolerance associated with the concrete thickness of four of these containment internal structure walls do not involve any accident initiating components or events, thus leaving the probabilities of an accident unaltered. The increased tolerance does not adversely affect any safety-related structures or equipment nor does the increased tolerance reduce the effectiveness of a radioactive material barrier. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function served by the containment internal structures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed tolerance increases do not change the performance of the affected containment internal structures. As demonstrated by the continued conformance to the applicable codes and standards governing the design of the structures, the walls with an increased concrete thickness tolerance continue to withstand the same effects as previously evaluated. There is no change to the design function of the affected modules and walls, and no new failure mechanisms are identified as the same types of accidents are presented to the walls before and after the change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to increase the concrete thickness tolerance does not alter any design function, design analysis, or safety analysis input or result, and sufficient margin exists to justify a departure from the standards identified in the underlying Tier 2 information with respect to the four affected walls. As such, because the system continues to respond to design basis accidents in the same manner as before without any changes to the expected response of the structure, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes. Accordingly, no safety margin is reduced by the increase of the wall concrete thickness tolerance.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment does not modify the design, construction, or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or method of control for any SSCs. Because the proposed amendment does not change the design, construction, or operation of any SSCs, it does not adversely affect any design function as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the probability of an accident
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Because the proposed amendment only reclassifies information and does not change the design, construction, or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant operations, the amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The only remaining accident after fuel transfer is completed in January 2015 is the Radwaste handling accident. Calculations were performed to determine the dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary that would result from dropping a High Integrity Container in the former Interim Radwaste Storage Facility (IRSF) such that its entire contents of radioactive, dewatered resin escape. A fraction of the escaped resin is non mechanistically assumed to be released as airborne radioactivity and pass from the IRSF directly to the environment, resulting in off-site dose consequences. The solid-to-aerosol release fraction is assumed to be the worst case non-mechanistic, mechanically initiated release fraction. The whole body and inhalation dose at the closest point on the Exclusion Area Boundary from the IRSF are then calculated.
The results of the radiological dose consequences for an accident involving the failure of a High Integrity Container show that the projected doses are insignificant in comparison to the 10 CFR 100 guidelines, and are less than the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] PAGs [protective action guidelines]. The projected dose at the Low Population Zone would be less than at the Exclusion Area Boundary and, since this accident involves an instantaneous release, it is also within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
The proposed change does not affect the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has no impact on plant operations. The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the remaining decommissioning activities or any decommissioning related postulated accident consequences.
The proposed changes related to the approval of the LTP do not affect operating procedures or administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating the remaining decommissioning design basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The accident analysis for the facility related to decommissioning activities is described in the DSAR [defueled safety analysis report]. The requested license amendment is consistent with the plant activities described in the DSAR and PSDAR [post-shutdown decommissioning activities report]. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the remaining plant systems, structures, or components in a way not previously evaluated.
There are sections of the LTP that refer to the decommissioning activities still remaining (
Therefore, the facility conditions for which the remaining postulated accident has been evaluated is still valid and no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced by this amendment. The system operating procedures are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The LTP is a plan for demonstrating compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination as provided in 10 CFR 20.1402 (Reference 5). The margin of safety defined in the statements of consideration for the final rule on the Radiological Criteria for License Termination is described as the margin between the 100 mrem/yr public dose limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose limit to the average member of the critical group at a site considered acceptable for unrestricted use (one of the criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402). This margin of safety accounts for the potential effect of multiple sources of radiation exposure to the critical group. Since the License Termination Plan is designed to comply with the radiological criteria for license termination for unrestricted use, the LTP supports this margin of safety.
In addition, the LTP provides the methodologies and criteria that will be used to perform remediation activities of residual radioactivity to demonstrate compliance with the ALARA [as low as reasonably achievable] criterion of 10 CFR 20.1402.
Additionally, the LTP is designed with recognition that (a) the methods in MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual) (Reference 6) and (b) the building surface contamination levels are not directly applicable to use with complex nonstructural components. Therefore, the LTP states that nonstructural components remaining in buildings (
Also, as previously discussed, the bounding accident for decommissioning is the resin container accident. Since the bounding decommissioning accident results in more airborne radioactivity than can be released from other decommissioning events, the margin of safety associated with the consequences of decommissioning accidents is not reduced by this activity.
Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The amendments also modify SR 3.1.4.2 not to require the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) determination if the result of the MTC determination required in TS 3.1.4.1 is within a certain tolerance of the corresponding design value. This change is based on the methods described in Combustion Engineering Owners Group Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, “Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the Technical Specifications End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limits,” September 2000.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated March 27, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 23 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), and South Carolina Public Service Authority (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information requested in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 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:
•
•
•
Ruth Reyes, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3249; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from the provisions of Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14345B029.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14352A155 and ML14352A164, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS, Units 2 and 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated May 20, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated June 3, November 6, and November 14, 2014, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (licensee) requested from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified Design Control Document (DCD) incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” as part of license amendment request (LAR) 13-42, “Tier 1 Editorial and Consistency Changes.”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14345B029, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 Figures 2.2.4-1, 3.3-1 through 10, 3.3-11A, 3.3-11B, and 3.3-12 through 14; Tables 2.2.2-3, 2.2.3-4, 2.2.3-6, 2.2.4-1, 2.2.4-4, 2.2.5-5, 2.3.2-2, 2.3.6-1, 2.3.6-4, 2.3.10-1, 2.3.10-4, 2.3.14-2, 2.6.3-3, 2.6.3-4, 3.3-1, 3.3-6, 2.1.3-4, 2.5.1-2 and 3.7-2; and Sections 2.6.3 and 3.3, as described in the licensee's request dated May 20, 2014, and supplemented on June 3, November 6, and November 14, 2014. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 23, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession Number ML14345B029), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by the letter dated May 20, 2014. The licensee supplemented this request by letter dated June 3, 2014. The proposed amendment is described in Section I, above.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on May 20, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated June 3, 2014. The exemption and amendment were issued on March 10, 2015, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML14345B023).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On February 26, 2015, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade P.M. cash-settled, European-style
According to the Exchange, both the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index are calculated in U.S. dollars on a real-time basis from the open of the first market on which the components are traded to the closing of the last market on which the components are traded. The methodologies used to calculate the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index are similar to the methodology used to calculate the value of other benchmark market-capitalization weighted indexes.
The Exchange proposes that trading hours for MSCI EAFE Index options would be from 8:30 a.m. (Chicago Time) to 3:15 p.m. (Chicago Time), except that trading in expiring MSCI EAFE Index options would end at 10:00 a.m. (Chicago Time) on their expiration date. Trading hours for MSCI EM Index options would be from 8:30 a.m. (Chicago Time) to 3:15 p.m. (Chicago Time).
The Exchange proposes that MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options would expire on the third Friday of the expiration month.
The Exchange proposes to create specific initial and maintenance listing criteria for options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add new Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to Rule 24.2 to provide that the Exchange may trade MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options if each of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) The index is broad-based, as defined in Exchange Rule 24.1(i)(1); (2) options on the index are designated as P.M.-settled index options; (3) the index is capitalization-weighted, price-weighted, modified capitalization-weighted, or equal dollar-weighted; (4) the index consists of 500 or more component securities; (5) all of the component securities of the index will have a market capitalization of greater than $100 million; (6) no single component security accounts for more than fifteen percent (15%) of the weight of the index, and the five highest weighted component securities in the index do not, in the aggregate, account for more than fifty percent (50%) of the weight of the index; (7) non-U.S. component securities (stocks or ADRs) that are not subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not, in the aggregate, represent more than: (i) Twenty percent (20%) of the weight of the MSCI EAFE Index, and (ii) twenty-two and a half percent (22.5%) of the weight of the MSCI EM Index; (8) during the time options on the index are traded on the Exchange, the current index value is widely disseminated at least once every fifteen (15) seconds by one or more major market data vendors; however, the Exchange may continue to trade MSCI EAFE Index options after trading in all component securities has closed for the day and the index level is no longer widely disseminated at least once every fifteen (15) seconds by one or more major market data vendors, provided that EAFE futures contracts are trading and prices for those contracts may be used as a proxy for the current index value; (9) the Exchange reasonably believes it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of options on the index, based on a calculation of the Exchange's current Independent System Capacity Advisor (ISCA) allocation and the number of new messages per second expected to be generated by options on such index; and (10) the Exchange has written surveillance procedures in place with respect to surveillance of trading of options on the index.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add new Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Rule 24.2 to set forth the following maintenance listing standards for options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index: (1) The conditions set forth in subparagraphs .01(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), and (10) must continue to be satisfied, the conditions set forth in subparagraphs .01(a)(5) and (6) must be satisfied only as of the first day of January and July in each year; and (2) the total number of component securities in the index may not increase or decrease by more than thirty-five percent (35%) from the number of component securities in the index at the time of its initial listing. In the event a class of index options listed on the Exchange pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .01(a) fails to satisfy these maintenance listing standards, the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of options of that class unless the continued listing of that class of index options has been approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
The contract multiplier for the MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options would be $100. The Exchange proposes that the minimum tick size for series
The Exchange proposes to apply the default position limits for broad-based index options of 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market (and 15,000 contracts near-term limit) to MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options. All position limit hedge exemptions would apply. The exercise limits for MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options would be equivalent to the position limits for those options. In addition, the Exchange proposes that the position limits for FLEX options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index would be equal to the position limits for non-FLEX options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index. The exercise limits for FLEX options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index would be equivalent to the position limits for those options.
The Exchange states that, except as modified by the proposal, Exchange Rules in Chapters I through XIX, XXIV, XXIVA, and XXIVB would equally apply to MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options. The Exchange also states that MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options would be subject to the same rules that currently govern other CBOE index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements,
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options and intends to use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for each of the Exchange's other index options to monitor trading in the proposed options. The Exchange also states that it is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group, is an affiliate member of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, and has entered into various comprehensive surveillance agreements and/or Memoranda of Understanding with various stock exchanges. Finally, the Exchange represents that it believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that would result from the introduction of MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the listing and trading of MSCI EAFE Index options will broaden trading and hedging opportunities for investors by providing an options instrument based on an index designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets (excluding the U.S. and Canada). Similarly, the Commission believes that the listing and trading of MSCI EM Index options will broaden trading and hedging opportunities for investors by providing an options instrument based on an index designed to measure the equity market performance of emerging markets. Moreover, the Exchange states that the iShares MSCI EAFE exchange traded fund (“EFA”) is an actively-traded product and that it lists actively-traded options overlying EFA. The Exchange likewise states that the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets exchange traded fund (“EEM”) is an actively-traded product and that it lists actively-traded options overlying EEM.
Because the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index are broad-based indexes composed of actively-traded, well-capitalized stocks, the trading of options on these indexes does not raise unique regulatory concerns. The Commission believes that the listing standards, which are created specifically and exclusively for these indexes, are consistent with the Act, for the reasons discussed below.
The Commission notes that proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 24.2 would require that the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index each consist of 500 or more component securities. Further, for options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index to trade, each of the minimum of 500 component securities would need to have a market capitalization of greater than $100 million. The Commission notes that, according to the Exchange, the MSCI EAFE Index has more than 900 components and the MSCI EM Index has more than 800 components, all of which must meet the market capitalization requirement to permit options on these indexes to begin trading.
The Commission notes that the proposed listing standards for options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index would not permit any single component security to account for more than 15% of the weight of the index, and would not permit the five highest weighted component securities to account for more than 50% of the weight of the index in the aggregate. The Commission believes that, in view of the requirement on the number of securities in each index, the number of countries represented in each index, and the market capitalization, this concentration standard is consistent with the Act. Further, the Exchange states that no single component accounts for more than 5% of either index. As noted above, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place for MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options and intends to use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for each of the Exchange's other index options to monitor trading in the proposed options.
The Commission notes that, consistent with the Exchange's generic listing standards for broad-based index options, non-U.S. component securities
The proposed listing standards require that, during the time options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index are traded on the Exchange, the current index value is widely disseminated at least once every 15 seconds by one or more major market data vendors. However, the Exchange may continue to trade MSCI EAFE Index options after trading in all component securities has closed for the day and the index level is no longer widely disseminated at least once every 15 seconds by one or more major market data vendors, provided that EAFE futures contracts are trading and prices for those contracts may be used as a proxy for the current index value.
In addition, the proposed listing standards require the Exchange to reasonably believe that it has adequate system capacity to support the trading of options on the MSCI EAFE Index and the MSCI EM Index. As noted above, the Exchange represents that it believes it and the OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that would result from the introduction of MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM Index options.
As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is required, under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the Exchange's proposed position and exercise limits, trading hours, margin, strike price intervals, minimum tick size, series openings, and other aspects of the proposed rule change are appropriate and consistent with the Act.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Exchange requested that the Commission accelerate approval of the proposal. The Exchange believes that accelerated approval by the Commission would enable these options to be brought to market sooner, which would broaden trading and hedging opportunities for investors by creating new options on indexes that are demonstrably popular.
The Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7051 to increase installation and monthly fees assessed for Direct Circuit Connection to NASDAQ, and to waive certain installation fees thereunder for a limited time. The exchange will implement the proposed changes on April 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those
NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7051 entitled “Direct Connectivity to Nasdaq” to increase the installation and monthly fees assessed for 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity to the Exchange. Direct connectivity offers market participants one of several means by which they may connect to NASDAQ.
The Exchange assesses separate installation and ongoing monthly fees for subscription to each option. For 1Gb connectivity, the Exchange assesses an installation fee of $1,000 and ongoing monthly fees of $1,000. For 10Gb connectivity, the Exchange charges an installation fee of $1,000 and ongoing monthly fees of $5,000. For 1Gb Ultra, the Exchange charges an installation fee of $1,500 and ongoing monthly fees of $1,500. The Exchange adopted 10Gb and 1Gb offering and related fees in August 2010, and has not increase [sic] fees for these offerings since.
In light of increased costs in offering these fiber connectivity options, and declining subscribership to 1Gb connectivity, the Exchange is proposing to increase the fees assessed for all three of the offerings. In terms of installation fees, the Exchange is proposing to harmonize the cost of installation by increasing the installation fees assessed for 10Gb and 1Gb connectivity from $1,000 to $1,500, which is the fee currently assessed for installation of 1Gb Ultra connectivity. The Exchange is proposing to waive the installation fees for the months of April through July, 2015, for all three connectivity options. As such, both new subscriptions and customers transferring from one connectivity option to another during that time will not be assessed the installation fee. The Exchange notes that this will allow customers to move from one offering to another, or to move the location of their connectivity from one direct connectivity access point to another, with no penalty in the form of an installation fee.
The Exchange is also proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fees for each connectivity option. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fees for 10Gb connectivity from $5,000 to $7,500. The Exchange is proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fee for 1Gb connectivity from $1,000 to $2,500. Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to increase the ongoing monthly fee for 1Gb Ultra from $1,500 to $2,500.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed increased fees are reasonable because they allow the Exchange to realign the fees assessed for the service with the costs incurred by NASDAQ in offering the service, which have increased since the offerings were first adopted. Specifically, NASDAQ has incurred increases in the cost of labor and networks in the installation and maintenance of equipment. The Exchange notes that the 1Gb and 10Gb infrastructures have been upgraded over the last 5 years with improvements in network performance along with a continued increase in bandwidth capacity constraints due to market data feeds growing. Consequently, this has resulted in higher networking costs that NASDAQ is now proposing to pass on through connectivity fees. In terms of labor, installation effort and costs have increased, which include NASDAQ data center operations and network engineering teams in multiple locations, data center vendor costs, and optical equipment that needs to be purchased, installed and maintained. The Exchange notes that it is not increasing the charge for installation of 1Gb Ultra connectivity because the fee implemented in 2014 already incorporated these elevated costs and continues to cover the installation costs.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed increases in the ongoing monthly fees for all three connectivity options are reasonable. The Exchange notes that it is increasing the ongoing monthly fees for each of the connectivity options in light of the higher networking and labor costs NASDAQ incurs in supporting the services. In addition, the Exchange has lost subscribers to the 1Gb connectivity option, which has resulted in fewer subscribers over which to spread the fixed costs of the service. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the monthly charge more than it is increasing the monthly charge for the 1Gb Ultra connectivity offering, which will result in the same monthly charge for both 1Gb and 1Gb Ultra connectivity offerings but will allow NASDAQ to compensate for the lower subscribership of the 1Gb connectivity option. The Exchange notes that the fees are similar to the fees NASDAQ charges member firms for co-location connectivity.
The Exchange believes that the fees for these services are equitably allocated consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and are non-discriminatory consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that all direct connect clients are offered the same service and there is no differentiation among them with regard to the fees charged for such services. In particular, the proposed fees are equitably allocated because all member firms that subscribe to a particular connectivity option under the rule will be assessed the same fee. The proposed installation fees are [sic] and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is increasing the fees for each service in amounts that are reflective of the increased costs associated with offering each of the connectivity options, and are in amounts representative of the value provided to their subscribers. The proposed waiver of the installation fees is both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will allow all subscribers the option to subscribe to another connectivity offering, to the extent the proposed connectivity fees of their existing connections are deemed too high in relationship to the benefit received. With regard to the ongoing monthly fee increases, the 10Gb connectivity option provides the fastest connectivity option with the greatest capacity and also represents the greatest cost to NASDAQ in offering it among the three options. Accordingly, NASDAQ is increasing the fee the most to users that receive the greatest benefit. As noted above, NASDAQ is increasing the 1Gb ongoing monthly fees more than the 1Gb Ultra connectivity option, which provides the same capacity but lower latency than the 1Gb option. The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the 1Gb connectivity option monthly fee is both an equitable allocation of a fee and not unfairly discriminatory because lower subscribership to the option has resulted in fewer subscribers to bear the increased costs of offering the service.
The Exchange notes that should a particular exchange charges [sic] excessive fees for direct connectivity services affected members will opt to terminate their direct connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and pursue a range of alternative trading strategies not dependent upon the exchange's direct connectivity services. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only direct connectivity revenues, but also any other revenues associated with the customer's operations. Moreover, all of the Exchange's fees for these services are equitably allocated consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act are non-discriminatory in that all direct connect clients are offered the same service and there is no differentiation among them with regard to the fees charged for such services.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 3, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSEArca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Investment Company Units (“Units”) on the Exchange.
The Shares will be offered by the WisdomTree Trust (“Trust”),
The Fund is an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”) that will seek investment results that before fees and expenses, closely correspond to the price and yield performance of the CBOE S&P 500 Put Write Index (“Index”). The Index was developed and is maintained by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE” or the “Index Provider”). Neither the Trust, the Adviser, the Sub-Adviser, State Street Bank and Trust Company, nor the Distributor is affiliated with the Index Provider.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategies, including other portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
The Fund will seek investment results that, before fees and expenses, closely correspond to the price and yield performance of the Index. The Index tracks the value of a passive investment strategy, which consists of overlaying “SPX Puts” over a money market account invested in one and three-month Treasury bills (“PUT Strategy”).
The Fund will invest at least 80% of its assets in SPX Puts and short-term U.S. Treasury securities.
The SPX Puts will be struck at-the-money and will be sold on a monthly basis on the Roll Date, (
While the Fund, under normal circumstances,
The Fund may invest its remaining assets in short-term, high quality securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government (in addition to U.S. Treasury securities) and non-U.S. governments, and each of their agencies and instrumentalities; U.S. government sponsored enterprises; repurchase agreements backed by U.S. government and non-U.S. government securities; money market mutual funds; and deposit and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks and financial institutions (“money market instruments”)
The Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in other exchange traded products (“ETPs”), such as other ETFs, as well as in non-exchange-traded registered open-end investment companies.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
Quotation and last-sale information for the Shares and any ETP in which it invests will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. In addition, the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3(j)(3), Commentary .01(c) will be
In addition, a portfolio composition file, which includes the security names and quantities of securities and other assets required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the Exchange via National Securities Clearing Corporation. The NAV of the Fund will be calculated as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time) on each day the Exchange is open for business.
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. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Intra-day, closing and settlement prices of exchange-traded portfolio assets, including investment companies, futures and options, will be readily available from the securities exchanges and futures exchanges trading such securities and futures (as the case may be), automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Quotation and last-sale information for U.S. exchange-listed options is available via Options Price Reporting Authority. Price information on fixed income portfolio securities, including money market instruments, and other Fund assets traded in the over-the-counter markets, including bonds and money market instruments, is available from major broker-dealer firms or market data vendors, as well as from automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services. In addition, the value of the Index will be published by one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. ET. Information about the Index constituents, the weighting of the constituents, the Index's methodology and the Index's rules will be available at no charge on the Index Provider's Web site at
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. 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 will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in Shares will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable.
The Commission notes that the Shares and the Fund must comply with the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) for the Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange. The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2), except that the Index will not meet the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01(a)(A)(1-5).
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-listed equity securities, futures contracts, and exchange-traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-listed equity securities, futures contacts and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-listed equity securities, futures contacts and exchange-traded options contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV or Index value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the IIV and Index Value is disseminated; (e) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
(6) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment).
(7) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
(8) All futures contracts in which the Fund may invest will be listed on U.S. that are members of the ISG.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
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 (the “Act”)
OneChicago is proposing to insert into its Rulebook new OCX Rule 516 and concurrently issue Notice to Members (“NTM”) 2015-7. New OCX Rule 516 codifies the requirement that Clearing Members submit to the Exchange account information related to reportable positions in OneChicago Contracts. OneChicago currently requires position-based reporting, but has not previously codified this requirement in the OCX Rulebook.
Additionally, OneChicago is concurrently issuing NTM 2015-7. The NTM informs market participants that OneChicago is adopting new OCX Rule 516. Additionally, the NTM explains to market participants that OCX will require Clearing Members to submit CFTC Form 102A and 102B data in the format required by the CFTC's Ownership and Control Reports (“OCR”) Final Rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is attached as
In its filing with the Commission, OneChicago included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
OneChicago is proposing to amend the OCX Rulebook to insert new OCX Rule 516. OCX Rule 516 will require Clearing Members to submit to the Exchange account information related to reportable positions in OneChicago Contracts. OneChicago currently requires such reporting, but has not
On November 18, 2013, the CFTC adopted new rules and related forms to enhance its identification of futures and swap market participants. The OCR Final Rule expanded upon the CFTC's pre-existing position and transaction reporting programs by requiring the electronic submission of trader identification and market participant data on certain forms.
Previously, market participants made these reports to the CFTC via paper forms, now referred to as “legacy” forms. Designated Contract Markets (“DCMs”) like OneChicago also required the submission of these legacy forms. The reporting programs allowed DCMs to conduct their self-regulatory obligations effectively, as the forms contain account information relating to market participants with reportable positions. Currently, OneChicago requires Clearing Members to submit a legacy Form 102 when an account of that Clearing Member has a reportable position of two hundred contracts in any contract.
OneChicago's NTM 2015-7 will require Clearing Members to make two changes to their reporting program. First, Clearing Members will be required to submit their reports electronically in the format required by the CFTC. Second, in addition to submitting Form 102A when a Clearing Member's customer has a reportable position, Clearing Members will be required to submit Form 102B when a customer exceeds the volume threshold of fifty contracts in any contract.
The NTM then provides instructions for firms to submit their Form 102A and 102B data electronically. For Form 102A, the NTM requires that Clearing Members submit the data when a customer has a two hundred contract position in any contract, which is currently the reportable threshold. The NTM requires the submission by 9:00 a.m. Central Time (“CT”) on the business day following the date on which the account becomes reportable. The implementation date for the electronic Form 102A data will be December 30, 2015.
For Form 102B, the NTM requires that Clearing Members submit the data when a customer has exceeded fifty contracts traded in any contract during a single trading day. The NTM requires the submission by 9:00 a.m. CT on the business day following the date on which the account becomes reportable. The implementation date for the electronic Form 102B data will also be December 30, 2015.
OCX Rules 905 and 1005 provide the template for the Form of Specifications Supplement for each OneChicago Contract. Specifically, Rule 905 provides the template for Single Stock Futures, whereas Rule 1005 provides the template for Stock Index Futures. Both of these templates are being updated to allow for a reportable trading volume level to accommodate the new volume threshold reporting requirement.
OneChicago 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.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will strengthen its ability to carry out its responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization. OneChicago must receive the information that Clearing Members provide to the CFTC under the new OCR Rule in order to carry out OneChicago's market surveillance program. Additionally, OneChicago's proposed addition of new OCX Rule 516 will further help the Exchange carry out its self-regulatory duties, as it will expressly codify the requirement that firms submit the relevant account data to the Exchange. The Form 102A data will allow the Exchange to continue to identify accounts that acquire reportable positions. Similarly, the Form 102B data will allow the Exchange to identify accounts that cross the volume threshold level intraday. OneChicago did not previously have access to this volume threshold account data, and Form 102B will now allow the Exchange to identify more market participants engaged in trading OneChicago products.
OneChicago does not believe that the rule change and associated NTM will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in that the rule change and associated NTM enhances OneChicago's market surveillance program. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change and associated NTM are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all Clearing Members.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The rule amendment and NTM will become operative on April 6, 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.
• 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OC-2015-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In Notice document 2015-07619 beginning on page 18270 in the issue of Friday, April 3, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 18270, in the third column, in the second paragraph from the bottom, the subject heading beginning “Self-Regulatory Organizations” should read as follows:
In notice document 2015-07851, appearing on pages 18662—18664 in the issue of Tuesday, April 7, 2015, make the following correction:
On page 18664, in the second column, on the thirty-first line from the top, “May 7, 2015” is corrected to read “April 28, 2015.”
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13—Equities and related rules governing order types and modifiers. 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.
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the
The Exchange notes that it continually assesses its rules governing order types and undertook on its own initiative a review of its rules related to order functionality to assure that its various order types, which have been adopted and amended over the years, accurately describe the functionality associated with those order types, and more specifically, how different order types may interact. As a result of that review, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change to delete rules relating to functionality that was not available.
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to continue with its efforts to review and clarify its rules governing order types, as appropriate. Specifically, the Exchange notes that Rule 13—Equities (“Rule 13”) is currently structured alphabetically, and does not include subsection numbering. The Exchange proposes to provide additional clarity to Rule 13 by re-grouping and re-numbering current rule text and making other non-substantive, clarifying changes. The proposed rule changes are not intended to reflect changes to functionality but rather to clarify Rule 13 to make it easier to navigate.
The Exchange proposes to re-structure Rule 13 to re-group existing order types and modifiers together along functional lines.
Proposed new subsection (a) of Rule 13 would set forth the Exchange's order types that are the foundation for all other order type instructions,
• Market Orders. Rule text governing Market Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(a)(1). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange systems.”
• Limit Orders. Rule text governing Limit Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(a)(2). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to capitalize the term “Limit Order,” and to shorten the definition in a manner that streamlines the rule text without changing the meaning of the rule. The Exchange notes that it proposes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” throughout new Rule 13.
The Exchange notes that it proposes to delete the definition of “Auto Ex Order” because all orders entered electronically at the Exchange are eligible for automatic execution in accordance with Rules 1000-1004—Equities and therefore the Exchange does not believe that it needs to separately define an Auto Ex Order. Rather than maintain a separate definition, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 13(a) that all orders entered electronically at the Exchange are eligible for automatic execution consistent with the terms of the order and Rules 1000-1004—Equities. The Exchange notes that Rule 13 currently provides for specified instructions for orders that may not execute on arrival, even if marketable,
Proposed new subsection (b) of Rule 13 would set forth the existing Time in Force Modifiers that the Exchange makes available for orders entered at the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to: (i) Move rule text governing Day Orders to new Rule 13(b)(1), without any substantive changes to the rule text; (ii) move rule text governing Good til Cancelled Orders to new Rule 13(b)(2), without any substantive changes to the rule text; and (iii) move rule text governing Immediate or Cancel Orders to new Rule 13(b)(3) without any changes to rule text. The Exchange notes that these time-in-force conditions are not separate order types, but rather are modifiers to orders. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to re-classify them as modifiers and remove the references to the term “Order.” In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” in Rule 13(b).
Proposed new subsection (c) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing Auction-Only Orders. In moving the rule text, the Exchange proposes the following non-substantive changes: (i) Capitalize the terms “Limit Order,” “CO Order,” and “Market Order”; (ii) move the rule text for CO Orders to new Rule 13(c)(1); (iii) rename a “Limit `At the Close' Order” as a “Limit-on-Close (LOC) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(2); (iv) rename a “Limit `On-the-Open' Order” as a “Limit-on-Open (LOO) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(3); (v) rename a “Market `At-the-Close' Order” as a “Market-on-Close (MOC) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(4); and (vi) rename a “Market `On-the-Open' Order” as a “Market-on-Open (MOO) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(5).
Proposed new subsection (d) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing orders that include instructions not to display all or a portion of the order. The order types proposed to be included in this new subsection are:
• Mid-point Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders. Existing rule text governing MPL Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term Limit Order, update cross references, and refer to “Add Liquidity Only” as ALO, since ALO is now a separately defined term in new Rule 13(e)(1). The Exchange also proposes to clarify the rule text by deleting the term “including” from the phrase “[a]n MPL Order is not eligible for manual executions, including openings, re-openings, and closings,” because MPL Orders would not participate in an opening, re-opening, or closing that is effectuated electronically.
• Reserve Orders. Existing rule text governing Reserve Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and hyphenate the term “Non-Displayed.” The Exchange proposes further non-substantive changes to the rule text governing Minimum Display Reserve Orders, which would be in new Rule 13(d)(2)(C), to clarify that a Minimum Display Reserve Order would participate in both automatic and manual executions. This is existing functionality relating to Minimum Display Reserve Orders
Proposed new subsection (e) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing order types that, by definition, do not route. The order types proposed to be included in this new subsection are:
• Add Liquidity Only (“ALO”) Modifiers. Existing rule text governing ALO modifiers would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and update cross-references. Existing rule text that is being moved to new Rule 13(e)(1)(A) currently provides that Limit Orders designated ALO may participate in opens and closes, but that the ALO instructions would be ignored. Because Limit Orders designated ALO could also participate in re-openings, and the ALO instructions would similarly be ignored, the Exchange proposes to clarify new Rule 13(e)(1)(A) to provide that Limit Orders designated ALO could participate in openings, re-openings, and closings, but that the ALO instructions would be ignored.
• Do Not Ship (“DNS”) Orders. Existing rule text governing DNS Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange systems.”
• Intermarket Sweep Order. Existing rule text governing ISOs would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(3) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order”, update cross-references, and replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange's book.”
Proposed new subsection (f) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's other existing order instructions and modifiers, including:
• Do Not Reduce (“DNR”) Modifier. Existing rule text governing DNR Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Order” and “Stop Order.” In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNR instructions would be added to an order, DNR is more appropriately referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
• Do Not Increase (“DNI”) Modifiers. Existing rule text governing DNI Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Order” and “Stop Order.” In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNI instructions would be added to an order, DNI is more appropriately referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
• Pegging Interest. Existing rule text governing Pegging Interest and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(3) with two clarifying changes to the existing rule text. First, because Pegging Interest is currently available for e-Quotes and d-Quotes only, the Exchange proposes to replace the term “can” with the term “must” in new Rule 13(f)(3)(a)(i) to provide that Pegging Interest “must be an e-Quote or d-Quote.” Second, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to the term “Primary Pegging Interest,” because the Exchange has only one form of pegging interest.
• Retail Modifiers. Existing rule text governing Retail Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(4) with non-substantive changes to update cross-references.
• Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) Modifier. Existing rule text governing STP Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(5) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Orders,” “Market Orders,” and “Stop Orders” and hyphenate the term “Self-Trade Prevention.”
• Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” Instructions. Existing rule text governing Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(6) with non-substantive changes to break the rule into subsections, capitalize the terms “Market Order,” “Limit Order,” and “Stop Order,” and replace the references to Display Book with references to Exchange systems. In addition, the Exchange proposes to re-classify this as an order instruction rather than as a separate order.
• Stop Orders. Existing rule text governing Stop Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(7) with non-substantive changes to break the rule into subsections, capitalize the term “Market Order,” and replace references to “Exchange's automated order routing system” with references to “Exchange systems.”
The Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to Rule 501(d)(2)—Equities relating to the list of order types that are not accepted for trading in UTP Securities by: (i) Replacing the term “Market or Limit at the Close” with “MOC or LOC”; (ii) replacing the term “At the Opening or At the Opening Only (“OPG”)” with “MOO or LOO”; (iii) deleting the GTX Order reference, as an order instruction that the Exchange no longer accepts; and (iv) updating the subsection rule numbering accordingly.
As part of the proposed restructure of Rule 13, the Exchange proposes to move existing rule text in Rule 13 governing the definition of “Routing Broker” to Rule 17(c), without any change to the rule text. The Exchange believes that Rule 17—Equities is a more logical location for the definition of Routing Broker because Rule 17(c)—Equities governs the operations of Routing Brokers.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule text in Rule 13 governing Not Held Orders and add rule text relating to not held instructions to supplementary material .20 to Rule 13. Supplementary material .20 to Rule 13 reflects obligations that members have in handling customer orders. Because not held instructions are instructions from a customer to a member or member organization regarding the handling of an order, and do not relate to instructions accepted by Exchange systems for execution, the Exchange believes that references to not held instructions are better suited for this existing supplementary material.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend supplementary material .20 to Rule 13 to add that generally, an instruction that an order is “not held” refers to an unpriced, discretionary order voluntarily categorized as such by the customer and with respect to which the customer has granted the member or member organization price and time discretion. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment aligns the definition of “not held” with guidance from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and other markets regarding not held instructions.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25—Equities governing d-Quotes to clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is no longer available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii)—Equities currently provides that a Floor broker may designate a maximum size of contra-side volume with which it is willing to trade using discretionary pricing instructions. Because this functionality is not available, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the maximum discretionary size parameter from Rules 70.25(c)(ii)—Equities and (c)(v)—Equities. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv)—Equities to clarify that the circumstances of when the Exchange would consider interest displayed by other market centers at the price at which a d-Quote may trade are not limited to determining when a d-Quote's minimum or maximum size range is met. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause “when determining if the d-Quote's minimum and/or maximum size range is met.” The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 70.25(c)—Equities will provide clarity and transparency regarding the existing functionality relating to d-Quotes at the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment regarding MPL Orders to reject both MPL Orders with an MTV larger than the size of the order and instructions to partially cancel an MPL Order that would result in an MTV larger than the size of the order would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system in general because it could potentially reduce the ability of a member organization from using MPL Orders to bypass contra-side interest that may be larger than the size of the MPL Order.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 70.25(c)—Equities would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system in general because it assures that the Exchange's rules align with the existing functionality available at the Exchange for d-Quotes.
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would re-structure Rule 13 and remove rule text that relates to functionality that is no longer operative, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to amend ICC Clearing Rule 401 (“Rule 401”)
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes changes to Rule 401 in order to provide additional clarity regarding settlement finality with respect to Mark-to-Market Margin. Specifically, ICC is proposing to add new subsections (k) and (l) to Rule 401. The new subsections are not intended to change any current ICC practices; rather, such changes are intended to provide additional clarity regarding settlement finality with respect to Mark-to-Market Margin. All capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the ICC Rules.
ICC proposes adding language in Rule 401(k) to clarify that each Transfer of Mark-to-Market Margin shall constitute a settlement (within the meaning of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Rule 39.14
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The changes, which clarify aspects of ICC's settlement cycle, result in no operational changes and apply uniformly across all market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2015-008 and should be submitted on or before May 5, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule 927.5NY. 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 adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-Specialists by deleting Rule 927.3NY and section (f) of Rule 927.5NY. In so doing, the Exchange would harmonize its rules governing Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers relating to protecting against the misuse of material, non-public information. The Exchange believes that Rules 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) are no longer necessary because all ATP Holders, including Specialists and e-Specialists, are subject to the Exchange's general principles-based requirements governing the protection against the misuse of material, non-public information, pursuant to Exchange Rules, Part 1—General Rules, Rule 3 (General Prohibitions and Duty to Report), section (j) (“Rule 3(j)”), which obviates the need for separately-prescribed requirements for a subset of market participants on the Exchange.
The Exchange has three classes of registered market makers. Pursuant to Rule 920NY(a), a Market Maker is an ATP holder that is registered with the Exchange for the purpose of submitting quotes electronically and making transactions as a dealer-specialist verbally on the Trading Floor, through the System from the Trading Floor, or remotely from off the Trading Floor. As the rule further provides, a Market Maker can be either a Remote Market Maker, a Floor Market Maker, a Specialist, or an e-Specialist. All Market Makers are subject to the requirements of Rule 925NY and 925.1NY, which set forth the obligations of Market Makers, particularly relating to quoting.
Rule 927NY(c) specifies the obligations of Specialists, which, in addition to the Market Maker obligations of Rule 925NY, must also honor guaranteed markets. Rules 927.4NY and 927.5NY specify the obligations of e-Specialists, which is a form of Specialist that operates remotely only. The quoting obligations of all Market Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, are set forth in Rule 925.1NY. That rule sets forth the main difference between Market Makers and Specialists/e-Specialists, namely that Specialists/e-Specialists have a heightened quoting obligation as compared to Market Makers.
Importantly, whether operating on the Trading Floor or remotely, all Market Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have access to the same information in the Consolidated Book that is available to all other market participants. Moreover, none of the Exchange's Market Makers, including Specialists/e-Specialists, have agency obligations to the Exchange's Consolidated Book. As such, the distinctions between Market Makers and Specialists/e-Specialists are the quoting requirements set forth in Rule 925.1NY and allocation guarantee for the Specialist Pool set forth in Rule 964NY.
Notwithstanding that Market Makers, Specialists, and e-Specialists have access to the same Exchange trading information as all other market participants on the Exchange, the Exchange has distinct, prescriptive rules governing how Specialists and e-Specialists may operate. Rule 927.3NY prohibits ATP Holders affiliated with a Specialist from purchasing or selling any option to which the Specialist is appointed, except to reduce or liquidate positions after appropriate identification and floor official approval of the transaction. The rule further provides an exemption from the prohibition for affiliated firms that implement specified Exchange-approved procedures to restrict the flow of material, non-public information. Rules 927.3NY(e)-(j) outline the “Exemption Guidelines” with which an affiliated firm must comply to obtain an exemption from the restriction in Rule 927.3NY. These specified “Exemption Guidelines” are meant to ensure that a Specialist will not have access to material, non-public information possessed by its affiliated ATP Holder, and that a firm will not misuse its affiliated Specialist's material, non-public information. The Exchange notes that the current rule is based on requirements from when specialists on the American Stock Exchange had agency obligations to the Exchange's book.
Rule 927.5NY(f) requires e-Specialists to maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes allocated to the e-Specialist or act as specialist or Market Maker in any security underlying options allocated to the e-Specialist (but does not require prior Exchange approval and does not set forth proscribed “Exemption Guidelines”).
The Exchange believes that the particularized guidelines in Rule 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) for Specialists and e-Specialists, respectively, are no longer necessary and proposes to delete them. Rather, the Exchange believes that Rule 3(j) governing the misuse of material, non-public information provides for an appropriate, principles-based approach to prevent the market abuses Rules 927.3NY and 927.5(f) are designed to address. Specifically, Rule 3(j) requires every Exchange member to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information by such member or associated persons. For purposes of this requirement, the misuse of material, non-public information includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Trading in any securities issued by a corporation, or in any related securities or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning that issuer;
(b) trading in a security or related options or other derivative securities, while in possession of material, non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related securities; or
(c) disclosing to another person or entity any material, non-public information involving a corporation whose shares are publicly traded or an imminent transaction in an underlying security or related securities for the purpose of facilitating the possible misuse of such material, non-public information.
Because Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject to the requirements of Rule 3(j), the Exchange does not believe that it is necessary to separately require specific limitations on dealings between Specialists/e-Specialists and their affiliates. Deleting Rule 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f) and requirements for specific procedures would provide Specialists/e-Specialists and ATP Holders with the flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or the securities market in a manner similar to how Market Makers on the Exchange currently operate and consistent with Rule 3(j).
As noted above, Exchange Specialists and e-Specialists are distinguished under Exchange rules from other types of Market Makers only to the extent that Specialists and e-Specialists have heightened obligations and allocation guarantees. However, none of these heightened obligations provides [sic] different or greater access to nonpublic information than any other market participant on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that its proposed approach to use a principles-based approach to protecting against the misuse of material non-public information for all of its registered market makers is consistent with recent approved rule changes for NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), BATS Exchange, Inc.'s (“BATS”), and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) rules governing cash equity market makers on those respective exchanges.
Comparable to members of cash equity markets, the Exchange believes that a principles-based rule applicable to members of options markets would be equally effective in protecting against the misuse of material non-public information. Indeed, Exchange Rule 3(j) is currently applicable to Exchange Market Makers other than Specialists and e-Specialists and already requires all ATP Holders to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material nonpublic information, which is similar to the respective NYSE Arca Equities, BATS and NYSE rules governing cash equity market makers. The Exchange believes Rule 3(j) provides appropriate protection against the misuse of material nonpublic information by Specialists and e-Specialists on the Exchange and there is no longer a need for prescriptive information barrier requirements in Rules 927.3NY and 927.5NY(f).
The Exchange notes that even with this proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist or e-Specialist would still be obligated to ensure that its policies and procedures reflect the current state of its business and continue to be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules, including being reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. While information barriers would not specifically be required under the proposal, Rule 3(j) already requires that an ATP Holder consider its business model or business activities in structuring its policies and procedures, which may dictate that an information barrier or a functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities law and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules.
The Exchange further notes that under Rule 3(j), an ATP Holder would be able [sic] structure its firm to provide for its options Specialists, e-Specialists, or Market Makers, as applicable, to be structured with its equities and customer-facing businesses, provided that any such structuring would be done in a manner reasonably designed to protect against the misuse of material, non-public information. For example, pursuant to Rule 3(j), a Specialist on the Exchange could be in the same independent trading unit, as defined in Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO,
The Exchange believes that the proposed reliance on the principles-based Rule 3(j) would ensure that an ATP Holder that operates a Specialist or e-Specialist would be required to protect against the misuse of any material non-public information. As noted above, Rule 3(j) already requires that firms refrain from trading while in possession of material non-public information concerning imminent transactions in the security or related product. The Exchange believes that moving to a principles-based approach rather than prescribing how and when to wall off a Specialist or e-Specialist from the rest of the firm would provide ATP Holders operating Specialists or e-Specialists with appropriate tools to better manage risk across a firm, including integrating options positions with other positions of the firm or, as applicable, by the respective independent trading unit. Specifically, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate for risk management purposes for a member operating a Specialist or e-Specialist to be able to consider both options Specialist/e-Specialist traded positions for purposes of calculating net positions consistent with Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, calculating intra-day net capital positions, and managing risk both generally as well as in compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Act (the “Market Access Rule”).
The Exchange further notes that if Specialists or e-Specialists are integrated with other market making operations, they would be subject to existing rules that prohibit ATP Holders from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on a member organization's access to the receipt of material, non-public information. As such, a member organization that integrates its Specialist/e-Specialist operations together with equity market making would need to protect customer information consistent with existing obligations to protect such information. The Exchange has rules prohibiting members from disadvantaging their customers or other market participants by improperly capitalizing on the
The Exchange proposes to make a conforming amendment to remove the section referencing Rule 927.3NY in Rule 927.6NY.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adopting a principles-based approach to permit an ATP Holder operating a Specialist or e-Specialist to maintain and enforce policies and procedures to, among other things, prohibit the misuse of material non-public information and eliminating restrictions on how an ATP Holder structures it Specialist or e-Specialist operations. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is based on an approved rule of the Exchange to which Specialists and e-Specialists are already subject—Rule 3(j)—and harmonizes the rules governing Specialists, e-Specialists, and Market Makers. Moreover, ATP Holders operating Specialists and e-Specialists would continue to be subject to federal and Exchange requirements for protecting material non-public order information.
The Exchange further believes the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because existing rules make clear to Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders the type of conduct that is prohibited by the Exchange. While the proposal eliminates prescriptive requirements relating to the misuse of material non-public information, Specialists, e-Specialists and ATP Holders would remain subject to existing Exchange rules requiring them to establish and maintain systems to supervise their activities, and to create, implement, and maintain written procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules, including the prohibition on the misuse of material, nonpublic information.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would still require that ATP Holders operating Specialists and e-Specialists maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Even though there would no longer be pre-approval of Specialist information barriers, any Specialist/e-Specialist written policies and procedures would continue to be subject to oversight by the Exchange and therefore the elimination of prescribed restrictions should not reduce the effectiveness of the Exchange rules to protect against the misuse of material non-public information. Rather, ATP Holders will be able to utilize a flexible, principles-based approach to modify their policies and procedures as appropriate to reflect changes to their business model, business activities, or to the securities market itself. Moreover, while specified information barriers may no longer be required, an ATP Holder's business model or business activities may dictate that an information barrier or functional separation be part of the appropriate set of policies and procedures that would be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change will maintain the existing protection of investors and the public interest that is currently applicable to Specialists and e-Specialists, while at the same time removing impediments to and perfecting a free and open market by moving to a principles-based approach to protect against the misuse of material non-public information.
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition by allowing Specialists, e-Specialists and Market Makers to comply with applicable Exchange rules in a manner best suited to their business models, business activities, and the securities markets, thus reducing regulatory burdens while still ensuring compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposal will foster a fair and orderly marketplace without being overly burdensome upon Specialists and e-Specialists.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 13 and related rules governing order types and modifiers. 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.
On June 5, 2014, in a speech entitled “Enhancing Our Market Equity Structure,” Mary Jo White, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) requested the equity exchanges to conduct a comprehensive review of their order types and how they operate in practice, and as part of this review, consider appropriate rule changes to help clarify the nature of their order types.
The Exchange notes that it continually assesses its rules governing order types and undertook on its own initiative a review of its rules related to order functionality to assure that its various order types, which have been adopted and amended over the years, accurately describe the functionality associated with those order types, and more specifically, how different order types may interact. As a result of that review, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change to delete rules relating to functionality that was not available.
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to continue with its efforts
The Exchange proposes to re-structure Rule 13 to re-group existing order types and modifiers together along functional lines.
Proposed new subsection (a) of Rule 13 would set forth the Exchange's order types that are the foundation for all other order type instructions,
• Market Orders. Rule text governing Market Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(a)(1). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange systems.”
• Limit Orders. Rule text governing Limit Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(a)(2). The Exchange proposes a non-substantive change to capitalize the term “Limit Order,” and to shorten the definition in a manner that streamlines the rule text without changing the meaning of the rule. The Exchange notes that it proposes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” throughout new Rule 13.
The Exchange notes that it proposes to delete the definition of “Auto Ex Order” because all orders entered electronically at the Exchange are eligible for automatic execution in accordance with Rules 1000-1004 and therefore the Exchange does not believe that it needs to separately define an Auto Ex Order. Rather than maintain a separate definition, the Exchange proposes to specify in proposed Rule 13(a) that all orders entered electronically at the Exchange are eligible for automatic execution consistent with the terms of the order and Rules 1000-1004. The Exchange notes that Rule 13 currently provides for specified instructions for orders that may not execute on arrival, even if marketable,
Proposed new subsection (b) of Rule 13 would set forth the existing Time in Force Modifiers that the Exchange makes available for orders entered at the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to: (i) Move rule text governing Day Orders to new Rule 13(b)(1), without any substantive changes to the rule text; (ii) move rule text governing Good til Cancelled Orders to new Rule 13(b)(2), without any substantive changes to the rule text; and (iii) move rule text governing Immediate or Cancel Orders to new Rule 13(b)(3) without any changes to rule text. The Exchange notes that these time-in-force conditions are not separate order types, but rather are modifiers to orders. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to re-classify them as modifiers and remove the references to the term “Order.” In addition, as noted above, the Exchange proposes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” in Rule 13(b).
Proposed new subsection (c) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing Auction-Only Orders. In moving the rule text, the Exchange proposes the following non-substantive changes: (i) Capitalize the terms “Limit Order,” “CO Order,” and “Market Order”; (ii) move the rule text for CO Orders to new Rule 13(c)(1); (iii) rename a “Limit `At the Close' Order” as a “Limit-on-Close (LOC) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(2); (iv) rename a “Limit `On-the-Open' Order” as a “Limit-on-Open (LOO) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(3); (v) rename a “Market `At-the-Close' Order” as a “Market-on-Close (MOC) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(4); and (vi) rename a “Market `On-the-Open' Order” as a “Market-on-Open (MOO) Order” and move the rule text to new Rule 13(c)(5).
Proposed new subsection (d) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing orders that include instructions not to display all or a portion of the order. The order types proposed to be included in this new subsection are:
• Mid-point Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders. Existing rule text governing MPL Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term Limit Order, update cross references, and refer to “Add Liquidity Only” as ALO, since ALO is now a separately defined term in new Rule 13(e)(1). The Exchange also proposes to clarify the rule text by deleting the term “including” from the phrase “[a]n MPL Order is not eligible for manual executions, including openings, re-openings, and closings,” because MPL Orders would not participate in an opening, re-opening, or closing that is effectuated electronically.
• Reserve Orders. Existing rule text governing Reserve Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(d)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and hyphenate the term “Non-Displayed.” The Exchange proposes further non-substantive changes to the rule text governing Minimum Display Reserve Orders, which would be in new Rule 13(d)(2)(C), to clarify that a Minimum Display Reserve Order would participate in both automatic and manual executions. This is existing functionality relating to Minimum Display Reserve Orders
Proposed new subsection (e) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's existing order types that, by definition, do not route. The order types proposed to be included in this new subsection are:
• Add Liquidity Only (“ALO”) Modifiers. Existing rule text governing ALO modifiers would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and update cross-references. Existing rule text that is being moved to new Rule 13(e)(1)(A) currently provides that Limit Orders designated ALO may participate in opens and closes, but that the ALO instructions would be ignored. Because Limit Orders designated ALO could also participate in re-openings, and the ALO instructions would similarly be ignored, the Exchange proposes to clarify new Rule 13(e)(1)(A) to provide that Limit Orders designated ALO could participate in openings, re-openings, and closings, but that the ALO instructions would be ignored.
• Do Not Ship (“DNS”) Orders. Existing rule text governing DNS Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order” and replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange systems.”
• Intermarket Sweep Order. Existing rule text governing ISOs would be moved to new Rule 13(e)(3) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the term “Limit Order”, update cross-references, and replace the reference to “Display Book” with a reference to “Exchange's book.”
Proposed new subsection (f) of Rule 13 would specify the Exchange's other existing order instructions and modifiers, including:
• Do Not Reduce (“DNR”) Modifier. Existing rule text governing DNR Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(1) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Order” and “Stop Order.” In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNR instructions would be added to an order, DNR is more appropriately referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
• Do Not Increase (“DNI”) Modifiers. Existing rule text governing DNI Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(2) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Order” and “Stop Order.” In addition, the Exchange believes that because DNI instructions would be added to an order, DNI is more appropriately referred to as a modifier rather than as an order type.
• Pegging Interest. Existing rule text governing Pegging Interest and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(3) with two clarifying changes to the existing rule text. First, because Pegging Interest is currently available for e-Quotes and d-Quotes only, the Exchange proposes to replace the term “can” with the term “must” in new Rule 13(f)(3)(a)(i) to provide that Pegging Interest “must be an e-Quote or d-Quote.” Second, the Exchange proposes to delete reference to the term “Primary Pegging Interest,” because the Exchange has only one form of pegging interest.
• Retail Modifiers. Existing rule text governing Retail Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(4) with non-substantive changes to update cross-references.
• Self-Trade Prevention (“STP”) Modifier. Existing rule text governing STP Modifiers and related subsections would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(5) with non-substantive changes to capitalize the terms “Limit Orders,” “Market Orders,” and “Stop Orders” and hyphenate the term “Self-Trade Prevention.”
• Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” Instructions. Existing rule text governing Sell “Plus”—Buy “Minus” Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(6) with non-substantive changes to break the rule into subsections, capitalize the terms “Market Order,” “Limit Order,” and “Stop Order,” and replace the references to Display Book with references to Exchange systems. In addition, the Exchange proposes to re-classify this as an order instruction rather than as a separate order.
• Stop Orders. Existing rule text governing Stop Orders would be moved to new Rule 13(f)(7) with non-substantive changes to break the rule into subsections, capitalize the term “Market Order,” and replace references to “Exchange's automated order routing system” with references to “Exchange systems.”
As part of the proposed restructure of Rule 13, the Exchange proposes to move existing rule text in Rule 13 governing the definition of “Routing Broker” to Rule 17(c), without any change to the rule text. The Exchange believes that Rule 17 is a more logical location for the definition of Routing Broker because Rule 17(c) governs the operations of Routing Brokers.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete existing rule text in Rule 13 governing Not Held Orders and add rule text relating to not held instructions to supplementary material .20 to Rule 13. Supplementary material .20 to Rule 13 reflects obligations that members have in handling customer orders. Because not held instructions are instructions from a customer to a member or member organization regarding the handling of an order, and do not relate to instructions accepted by Exchange systems for execution, the Exchange believes that references to not held instructions are better suited for this existing supplementary material.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend supplementary material .20 to
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25 governing d-Quotes to clarify that certain functionality set forth in the Rule is no longer available. Specifically, Rule 70.25(c)(ii) currently provides that a Floor broker may designate a maximum size of contra-side volume with which it is willing to trade using discretionary pricing instructions. Because this functionality is not available, the Exchange proposes to delete references to the maximum discretionary size parameter from Rules 70.25(c)(ii) and (c)(v). In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70.25(c)(iv) to clarify that the circumstances of when the Exchange would consider interest displayed by other market centers at the price at which a d-Quote may trade are not limited to determining when a d-Quote's minimum or maximum size range is met. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to delete the clause “when determining if the d-Quote's minimum and/or maximum size range is met.” The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 70.25(c) will provide clarity and transparency regarding the existing functionality relating to d-Quotes at the Exchange.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendment regarding MPL Orders to reject both MPL Orders with an MTV larger than the size of the order and instructions to partially cancel an MPL Order that would result in an MTV larger than the size of the order would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system in general because it could potentially reduce the ability of a member organization from using MPL Orders to bypass contra-side interest that may be larger than the size of the MPL Order.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 70.25(c) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system in general because it assures that the Exchange's rules align with the existing functionality available at the Exchange for d-Quotes.
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 change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would re-structure Rule 13 and remove rule text that relates to functionality that is no longer operative, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Triumph Ventures Corp., a Delaware corporation whose principal office is in Jerusalem, Israel (trading symbol TRVX quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.) because of questions regarding the accuracy of publicly available information about the company's control persons, officers, directors, and the ownership of its stock, including questions about the accuracy of statements in the company's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, and in its registration statement on Form S-1 originally filed on March 4, 2014 and subsequently amended concerning the identification and description of the company's directors, officers, control persons and ownership.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate public information concerning the securities of the issuers listed below.
1. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that AmTrust Financial Group, Inc. is no longer an operating business. AmTrust Financial Group, Inc. was a Delaware corporation based in New York. The company is quoted on OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (“OTC Link”), under the ticker symbol AFGP.
2. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc. has been taken private. Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Massachusetts. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol BRAI.
3. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Clary Corp. has been taken private. Clary Corp. is a California corporation based in California. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol CLRY.
4. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Conbraco Industries, Inc. has been taken private. Conbraco Industries, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation based in North Carolina. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol CNIN.
5. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Dream
6. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Dynatem, Inc. has been taken private. Dynatem, Inc. is a California corporation based in California. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol DYTM.
7. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Employers General Insurance Group is no longer an operating business. Employers General Insurance Group is a Delaware corporation based in Texas. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol EGIG.
8. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that K-tel International, Inc. has been taken private. K-tel International, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation based in Canada. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol KTLI.
9. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Maintenance Depot, Inc. is no longer an operating business. Maintenance Depot, Inc. was a Florida corporation based in Florida. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol MDPO.
10. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Manifold Capital Corp. is no longer an operating business. Manifold Capital Corp. was a Delaware corporation based in New York. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol MANF.
11. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that McM Corp. has been taken private. McM Corp. is a North Carolina corporation based in North Carolina. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol MMOR.
12. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Mt. Carmel Public Utility Co. has been taken private. Mt. Carmel Public Utility Co. is an Illinois corporation based in Illinois. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol MCPB.
13. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Muskoka Flooring Corp. is no longer an operating business. Muskoka Flooring Corp. was a Delaware corporation based in Delaware. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol MSKA.
14. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that National Investment Managers, Inc. has been taken private. National Investment Managers, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Ohio. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol NIVM.
15. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Naylor Pipe Co. has been taken private. Naylor Pipe Co. is an Illinois corporation based in Illinois. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol NAYP.
16. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Omega Ventures, Inc. is no longer an operating business. Omega Ventures, Inc. was a Nevada corporation based in Florida. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol OMVN.
17. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that On Stage Entertainment, Inc. has been taken private. On Stage Entertainment, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Nevada. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol ONST.
18. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Pachinko World, Inc. is no longer an operating business. Pachinko World, Inc. was a Nevada corporation based in California. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol PCHW.
19. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Polyair Inter Pack Inc. has been taken private. Polyair Inter Pack Inc. is a Canadian entity based in Canada. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol PPKZ.
20. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Setech, Inc. has been taken private. Setech, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Tennessee. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol SETC.
21. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Seven J Stock Farm, Inc. has been taken private. Seven J Stock Farm, Inc. is a Texas corporation based in Texas. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol SVJJ.
22. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that TransCor Waste Services, Inc. has been taken private. TransCor Waste Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation based in Florida. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol TRCW.
23. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Valley Systems, Inc. (VSI Liquidation Corp.) is no longer an operating business. Valley Systems, Inc. (VSI Liquidation Corp.) was a Delaware corporation based in Georgia. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol VSLC.
24. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that World Racing Group, Inc. has been taken private. World Racing Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in North Carolina. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol WRGP.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
By the Commission.
On December 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-ICC-2014-24 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC proposes revising the ICC Risk Management Framework to incorporate risk model enhancements related to Recovery Rate Sensitivity Requirements (“RRSR”), anti-procyclicality, and ICC's Guaranty Fund (“GF”) allocation methodology. ICC also proposes revisions which are intended to remove obsolete references and ensure consistency.
ICC proposes revising its Risk Management Framework to incorporate risk model parameter estimation enhancements related to the RRSR computations. ICC states that under its current ICC Risk Management Framework, recovery rate stress scenarios are explicitly incorporated in the RRSR computations and for Jump-to-Default (“JTD”) considerations. The quantity RRSR is designed to capture fluctuations due to potential changes of the market expected recovery rates. In calculating the RRSR, all instruments belonging to a Risk Factor (“RF”) or Risk Sub-Factor (“RSF”) are subjected to Recovery Rate (“RR”) stress scenarios to obtain resulting Profit/Loss (“P/L”) responses, and the worst scenario response is chosen for the estimation of the RF/RSF RRSR. The JTD analysis is designed to capture the unexpected potential losses associated with credit events for assumed single-name-specific set of RR stress values. The JTD responses are determined by using minimum and maximum RR levels. Currently, the RRSR and JTD computations use the same RR stress levels.
ICC proposes separating the RR stress levels for these two computations in order to introduce more dynamic and appropriate estimations of the RR stress levels for RRSR purposes. According to ICC, the RR levels for RRSR purposes will reflect a 5-day 99% Expected Shortfall (“ES”) equivalent risk measure associated with RR fluctuations. The proposal will also, as stated by ICC, eliminate index RRSR, as index RRs are not subject to market uncertainty, but rather driven by market conventions. ICC states that the dynamic feature of the RR stress level estimations is achieved by analyzing historical time series of RRs in order to calibrate a statistical model with a time varying volatility. Under this approach, ICC calculates, the RRSR will capture the exposure to RR fluctuations over a 5-day risk horizon described by 99% ES equivalent risk measure.
Additionally, ICC proposes revising its Risk Management Framework to incorporate a portfolio level anti-procyclicality analysis that features price changes observed during and immediately after the Lehman Brothers (“LB”) default. In order to achieve an anti-procyclicality of Spread Response requirements, ICC proposes consideration of explicit price scenarios derived from the greatest price decrease and increase during and immediately after the LB default. According to ICC, these scenarios capture the default of a major participant in the credit market and the market response to the event. The introduced scenarios are defined in price space to maintain the stress severity during periods of low credit spread levels and high price when the Spread Response requirements computed under the current framework are expected to be lower.
Further, as explained by ICC, the price scenarios derived from the greatest price decrease and increase during and immediately after the LB default are explicitly incorporated into the GF sizing to ensure an anti-procyclical GF size behavior. ICC states that this enhancement also addresses a regulatory requirement as described in Article 30 of the Regulatory Technical Standards,
Furthermore, ICC proposes enhancements to its GF allocation methodology. Currently, ICC states that the GF allocations reflect a risk “silo” approach, which separates each GF risk component. Under the current methodology, the allocation of GF reflects the Clearing Participants' (“CPs”) own riskiness in proportion to each GF risk component size and the increase or decrease of the “silo” size. Therefore, GF allocations can significantly fluctuate in response to position changes in the portfolios of the CPs that drive the GF size. ICC proposes modifying its methodology so that the GF allocations reflect the CPs' total uncollateralized losses across all GF risk components. According to ICC, under the proposed approach, the GF allocations are independent of the distribution of the uncollateralized losses across various GF risk components or “silos” and the fluctuation of each CP's uncollateralized losses within various GF risk components or “silos.” Additionally, ICC added clarifying language regarding how the GF computations are performed with explicit currency dependent expressions.
ICC also proposes certain non-substantive changes to the Risk Management Framework to address CFTC recommendations. Specifically, ICC proposes amending the Risk Management Framework to reflect ICC's current approach towards portfolio diversification, by unifying diversification and hedge thresholds and explicitly setting both to be equal to the lowest estimated sector Kendall Tau correlation coefficient. ICC also proposes clarifying language regarding how ICC meets its liquidity requirements.
Additionally, ICC proposes non-substantive changes throughout the framework to correct obsolete references. Specifically, ICC is removing language stating that the Chief Risk Officer is a dual employee of both ICC and its sister company, The Clearing Corporation. ICC is also removing language stating that The Clearing Corporation is the provider of risk management services to ICC. Furthermore, ICC is removing references to the “U.K. Financial Services Authority” and replacing with references to the “U.K. Prudential Regulatory Authority.” Finally, ICC is adding “The European Securities and Markets Authority” to the sample list of competent authorities for capital adequacy regulation listed in the framework.
ICC also proposes non-substantive changes throughout the Risk Management Framework to ensure consistency. ICC is updating the mission statement contained within the document to be consistent with ICC's Board-approved mission statement. Also, ICC is modifying the frequency by which the Risk Department monitors various risk metrics from a quarterly basis to a monthly basis to reflect actual business practices.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act
Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposal is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 03/03-0252 issued to MidCap Financial SBIC, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to May 14, 2015.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Derek Rivers, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State, SA-17, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to May 14, 2015.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Derek Rivers, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services (CA/OCS/PMO), U.S. Department of State, SA-17, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 or at
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below
Please submit comments by May 14, 2015.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2015-0006.
Rosemary Jones, 202-366-2042, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The total is 11,700 burden hours.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's (MBUSA) petition for an exemption of the smart Line Chassis vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
In a petition dated December 17, 2014, MBUSA requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Mercedes-Benz smart Line Chassis vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, MBUSA provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the smart Line Chassis vehicle line which includes the smart fortwo vehicle. MBUSA stated that its MY 2016 smart Line Chassis vehicle line will be equipped with its passive, transponder-based ignition immobilizer (FBS III/FBS IV) antitheft device and an access code-protected locking system as standard equipment. Key components of the immobilizer antitheft device will include the immobilizer, transmitter key, electronic ignition starter switch control unit (EIS), the body control module (ECM), and the engine control module (ECU). MBUSA stated that its immobilizer device is an interlinked system of control units which collectively perform the immobilizer function. The interlinked system includes the engine, EIS, transmitter key, ECU and ECM (including the fuel injection system) which independently calculates and matches a unique code. MBUSA stated that it is impossible to read the code from the vehicle in order to defeat the system. If a relevant query from the vehicle to the transmitter key is valid, operation of the vehicle will be authorized. MBUSA further stated that it will offer an audible and visible alarm
MBUSA stated that the antitheft device is deactivated when the transmitter key has been inserted in the EIS and energy is transferred to the key to verify drive authorization. Verification of the correct key is transmitted over an infrared link between the key and the EIS. If the authentication check has recognized the correct key, the EIS will allow the key to be turned to the “Start Engine” position. MBUSA stated that when the key then reaches the “Ignition on” position, the authentication sequence in the ECM and ECU will start. The ECM then receives authorization from the EIS following authentication verification. MBUSA further stated that if the values from the authentication are identical, the ECM will authorize the start and operation of the vehicle will be allowed. Activation of the device occurs automatically when the key is removed from the ignition switch. Once activated, only a valid key with the correct code inserted into the ignition switch will disable immobilization and allow the vehicle to start and operate. MBUSA further stated that no other action by the operator other than turning the key is required to activate or deactivate the immobilizer.
In its submission, MBUSA stated that a locking/unlocking feature is also incorporated into the device. An encoded data exchange between the transmitter key and the vehicle's central controller for the lock/unlock feature (ECM) is carried out by radio signal. When an unlocking signal from the remote key sends a permanent and rolling code message to the vehicle's central ECU, the device will compare the permanent code with the stored code in the ECM. If the permanent codes match, the rolling codes are then compared. MBUSA stated that if both codes match, the locking system will unlock the doors, tailgate and fuel filler cover.
In addressing the specific content requirements of § 543.6, MBUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, MBUSA conducted tests based on its own specified standards. MBUSA provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with its own specified requirements for each test. MBUSA also conducted performance tests based on the Economic Commission for Europe's (ECE) specified standards. MBUSA provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the immobilizer device offered on the smart Line Chassis vehicle line is reliable and durable because the device complied with the specified requirements for each test.
MBUSA also stated that it believes that the immobilizer device offered on the smart Line Chassis vehicle line will be at least as effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard and as effective in deterring theft as it has been on other MBUSA vehicle lines that have been equipped with an antitheft device, as demonstrated by the low theft rate history of MBUSA vehicles. MBUSA stated that its proposed device is also functionally equivalent to the antitheft devices installed on the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, E-Class, C-Class, SLK-Class, SL-Class and NGCC Chassis vehicles, which the agency has exempted from the parts-marking requirements beginning with MYs 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014 respectively. MBUSA also referenced theft rate data published by the agency comparing its proposed device to antitheft devices already installed in the BMW MINI, Honda Fit and Toyota Scion xB vehicle lines. MBUSA stated that theft data published by the agency show that the average theft rate for the BMW MINI Cooper with an immobilizer device was 0.4422 in MY/CY 2010 and 0.3413 in MY/CY 2012. MBUSA also referenced theft rate data published by the agency for the Honda Fit and Toyota Scion xB vehicle lines (with immobilizers) which showed a theft rate of 0.3118 and 0.2167 (MY/CYs 2011 and 2012) for the Honda Fit and 1.1553 and 0.5110 (MY/CYs 2011 and 2012) for the Toyota Scion xB respectively. MBUSA stated that it believes that this data also indicates that the immobilizer device was effective in contributing to an average reduction of 22.8%, 30.5%, and 47.7% reduction in the theft rate of the BMW MINI Cooper, Honda Fit and Toyota Scion xB, respectively. MBUSA also stated it believes that the data indicates the immobilizer device was effective in contributing to an average reduction of 29.9% in the theft rate for the SL-Line Chassis when theft rates for the vehicle line dropped from 1.4170 (CY 2005) to 1.0460 (CY 2007).
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by MBUSA on its device, the agency believes that the device is substantially similar to devices installed in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions and that the antitheft device for the smart Line Chassis vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that MBUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the MBUSA smart vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information MBUSA provided about its antitheft device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full MBUSA's petition for exemption for the MBUSA smart Line Chassis vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If MBUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if MBUSA wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of webinar.
NHTSA has redesigned the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). Through this notice, NHTSA is announcing a public webinar to provide information about the two new surveys that will replace NASS: Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) and Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS). NHTSA will describe the samples designs and answer questions related to the samples. The webinar will be available via the web and requires internet access.
NHTSA will hold the webinar on April 29, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., EDT. The presentation will be available through internet access only via the web. NHTSA will post specific information on how to participate via the Internet on the NHTSA Web site at
For information concerning the webinar or access via the Internet, please contact Raj Subramanian, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA (telephone: 202-366-3365 or email:
The webinar will allow interested persons to learn more about NHTSA's newly designed nationally representative samples that will replace NASS.
NHTSA is undertaking a modernization effort to upgrade the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) by improving the information technology infrastructure, updating and prioritizing the data collected, reselecting the sample sites and sample sizes, re-examining the electronic formats in which the crash data files are made available to the public, and improving data collection methods and quality control procedures, among other activities. This project is called the Data Modernization (DataMod) Project.
NASS collects crash data on a nationally representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes and related injuries. NASS data are used by Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as by industry and academia in the U.S. and around the world. The data enable stakeholders to make informed regulatory, program, and policy decisions regarding vehicle design and traffic safety. The NASS system currently has two components: The General Estimates System (GES) and the Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). While the GES captures information on all types of traffic crashes, the CDS focuses on more severe crashes involving passenger vehicles to better document the consequences to vehicles and occupants in crashes—
NASS was originally designed in the 1970's, and has not received significant revision since that time with regard to the type of data collected and the sites for data collection. Over the last three decades NHTSA understands that the scope of traffic safety studies has expanded and the data needs of the transportation community have increased and significantly changed. In addition, the distribution of the U.S. population has shifted over the past four decades, and there is a growing need for the collection of information that addresses issues of crash avoidance. Recognizing the importance of this data, NHTSA is pursuing the DataMod Project to enhance the quality of the data collected and the overall effectiveness of the NASS.
As part of the Data Modernization project, NHTSA has redesigned the NASS. It will be replaced with two new surveys:
• CRSS will be a records-based data collection system similar to the current GES and will continue to provide the annual, nationally representative estimates of police-reported motor vehicle crashes overall. In addition, CRSS will provide estimates by type of vehicle, and for a broad range of vehicle and crash characteristics that are needed to fully describe current highway safety and to track motor vehicle crash trends.
• CISS is an investigation-based system similar to the current CDS and will collect accurate, detailed information about a nationally representative selection of passenger vehicle crashes that involve a passenger vehicle towed from the crash scene. Researchers will investigate crashes a few days after the crash gathering information from a variety of sources: crash site inspection, vehicle inspections, interviews, medical records and others. CISS will have enhanced pre-crash data and data on the presence and use of crash avoidance technologies.
Information on the current NASS sample, coding instructions, and descriptive materials can be reviewed on NHTSA's Web site at:
NHTSA is hosting a public webinar to inform vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, the medical community, researchers, safety advocates and the general public about the new sample designs for CRSS and CISS. NHTSA will present a technical overview of the new sample designs covering the following topics:
1. Welcome and Opening Remarks
2. Webinar Outline
3. Data Modernization
a. MAP-21
b. Data Needs
4. Sample Redesign: Why and How?
a. Current Systems: GES and CDS three-stage designs
b. Independence between CRSS and CISS samples
5. The CISS Sample Design
a. Scope
b. Frame, Stratification, Formation and Selection of each of the three stages (PSU, PJ and PAR)
c. Sample Allocation
6. The CRSS Sample Design
a. Scope
b. Frame, Stratification, Formation and Selection of each of the three stages (PSU, PJ and PAR)
c. Sample Allocation
7. Improvements in CISS/CRSS
a. Scalability and Flexibility
b. Precision of Estimates
c. MOS aligned with Data Needs
8. Ongoing and Upcoming Activities in Survey Modernization
a. Estimation Protocols
b. Calibration
c. Analytic Guidelines
9. Questions
The webinar will be open to the public. NHTSA will present the new sample designs starting at 1:30 p.m. The presentation will be about one hour. After the presentation NHTSA has scheduled 30 minutes to answer questions from the participants on the sample designs.
Participants may access the Webinar via the Internet and telephone. The telephone access number and other information on how to participate via the Internet will be posted on the NHTSA Web site at
Under authority delegated by 49 CFR 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Maserati North America Inc.'s, (Maserati) petition for an exemption of the Ghibli vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
In a petition dated February 5, 2015, Maserati requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Ghibli vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Maserati provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Ghibli vehicle line. Maserati stated that all of its vehicles will be equipped with a passive, Sentry Key Immobilizer System (SKIS), a Vehicle Alarm System (VTA) and a Keyless Ignition System as standard equipment beginning with the 2016 model year. Key components of its SKIS antitheft device will include an Engine Power Control Module, Fuel Delivery and a Starter Motor Circuit. Maserati's keyless ignition system will consist of a Key Fob with Remote Keyless Entry (RKE) Transmitter, RFHub and Keyless Ignition Node (KIN). Key components of Maserati's VTA system are a hood ajar switch, security indicator, RFHub/Kin and FOBIK, an intrusion and inclination sensor, door ajar switches, an intrusion module and a central body controller. Maserati also stated that its VTA system will include an audible and visual feature that will provide perimeter protection that will monitors the vehicle doors, ignition switch and deck lid for unauthorized tampering, and an ultrasonic intrusion sensor, designed to detect motion within the vehicle. Maserati further stated that if unauthorized tampering with any of these protected areas is detected, the vehicle's horn/siren will sound and some of its exterior lamps will flash.
Maserati stated that the immobilizer device is automatically activated when the ignition is changed from the run position to the off position. Once activated, only the use of a valid key can disable immobilization and allow the vehicle to run. Specifically, Maserati stated that the device is deactivated by performing an unlock actuation via the RKE transmitter or by starting the vehicle with a valid RFHub key. Maserati stated that to start the vehicle, the driver must press and hold the brake pedal while pressing the START/STOP button. The system takes over and engages the starter causing the starter motor to run and disengage automatically when the engine is running. Maserati stated that the RFHub contains and controls the SKIS, preventing the engine from running more than 2 seconds unless a valid FOBIK key is used to start the engine. Maserati also stated that the vehicle's key fob with RKE transmitter, RFHub and the KIN contains over 50,000 possible electronic key combinations and allows the driver to operate the ignition switch with the push of a button as long as the RKE transmitter is in the passenger compartment.
Maserati's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Maserati provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Maserati conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Maserati provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (
Maserati stated that based on MY 2010 theft data published by NHTSA, its
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Maserati on its device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Ghibli vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Maserati has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Maserati Ghibli vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Maserati provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Maserati's petition for exemption for the Maserati Ghibli vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Maserati decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Maserati wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.95.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Proposed termination of explosive approvals.
PHMSA proposes to terminate the explosive approvals listed herein. PHMSA attempted to contact all of the below listed approval holders during the month of October 2014 via certified mail utilizing the addresses on file. The certified letters were returned by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as “undeliverable.” With the failure of the explosive approval holders to provide PHMSA with a valid company name and mailing address, the approvals listed below will be terminated 30 days after this notice is published in the
Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
In this notice, PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) is proposing to terminate the approvals listed below for the approval holders' failure to provide PHMSA with current valid contact information and failure to provide evidence that UN 6(d) testing has been performed in accordance with § 172.102 and Special Provision 347.
On January 19, 2011, PHMSA published a final rule (76 FR 3308; HM-215K) titled
PHMSA will terminate the below listed approvals 30 days after this notice is published in the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PRA.
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Capital Distribution.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by May 14, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0310, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0310, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to: oira
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is requesting renewal of OMB's approval of the following information collection.
If an FSA is not required to file a capital distribution application, it may be required to file a capital distribution notice with the OCC if: (1) It would not be well capitalized following the capital distribution as set forth in 12 CFR 165.4(b)(1); (2) the proposed capital distribution would reduce the amount of or retire any part of its common or preferred stock, or retire any part of debt instruments (such as notes or debentures) included in capital under 12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable, (other than regular payments required under a debt instrument approved under 12 CFR 163.81); or (3) it is a subsidiary of a savings and loan holding company. 12 CFR 163.143(b).
If neither an FSA nor its proposed capital distribution meet the criteria described above, the FSA is not required to file an application or notice with the OCC. 12 CFR 163.143(c). However, if the FSA is required to file a notice with the
On January 26, 2015, the OCC issued a notice regarding this collection for 60 days of comment (80 FR 4037). No comments were received. Comments continue to be solicited on:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC;
b. The accuracy of OCC's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.
e. Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Subordinated Debt.”
Comments must be submitted on or before June 15, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0320, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
OMB granted the OCC a six-month approval for the information collection requirements contained in the interim final rule entitled “Subordinated Debt Issued by a National Bank.” (December 2014 Interim Final Rule).
The February 2014 Interim Final Rule revised the requirements of 12 CFR 5.47 applicable to national banks. Specifically, those revisions require that all national banks must receive prior OCC approval in order to prepay subordinated debt that is included in tier 2 capital and certain banks must receive prior OCC approval to prepay subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital. If the prepayment is in the form of a call option and the subordinated debt is included in tier 2 capital, a national bank must submit the
The February 2014 Interim Final Rule also revised the requirements of 12 CFR 163.81
The December 2014 Interim Final Rule revised 12 CFR 5.47 to add a disclosure requirement in 12 CFR 5.47(d)(3)(ii)(C). A national bank must describe in the subordinated debt note the OCC's authority under 12 CFR 3.11 to limit distributions, including interest payments on any tier 2 capital instrument, if the national bank has full discretion to permanently or temporarily suspend such payments without triggering an event of default.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's 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 information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Release of Non-Public Information.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
You should submit written comments by May 14, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0200, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0200, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to:
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection:
The information requirements require individuals who are requesting non-public OCC information to provide the OCC with information regarding the legal grounds for the request. The
The information requirements in 12 CFR part 4, subpart C, are as follows:
• 12 CFR 4.33: Request for non-public OCC records or testimony.
• 12 CFR 4.35(b)(3): Third parties requesting testimony.
• 12 CFR 4.37(a)(2): OCC former employee notifying OCC of subpoena.
• 12 CFR 4.37(a) and (b): Limitation on dissemination of released information.
• 12 CFR 4.38(a) and (b): Conditions on dissemination of released information.
• 12 CFR 4.39(d): Request for authenticated records or certificate of nonexistence of records.
The OCC uses the information to process requests for non-public OCC information and to determine if sufficient grounds exist for the OCC to release the requested information or provide testimony that would include a discussion of non-public information. This information collection facilitates the processing of requests and expedites the OCC's release of non-public information and testimony to the requester, as appropriate.
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment on January 26, 2015 (80 FR 4038). No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Investment Securities.”
You should submit written comments by June 15, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0205, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval, without change, of the following information collection:
The information collection requirements in 12 CFR part 1 are as follows:
Under 12 CFR 1.3(h)(2), a national bank may request an OCC determination that it may invest in an entity that is exempt from registration under section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
Under 12 CFR 1.7(b), a national bank may request OCC approval to extend the five-year holding period for securities held in satisfaction of debts previously contracted (DPC) for up to an additional five years. The bank must provide a clearly convincing demonstration of why any additional holding period is needed. The OCC uses the information in the request to ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that the bank's purpose in retaining the securities is not speculative and that the bank's reasons
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled “International Regulation.”
Comments must be received by June 15, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0102, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is proposing to extend OMB approval of the following information collection without change:
In practice, the OCC also has required an application pursuant to section 28.3(c) from a national bank seeking to join a foreign exchange, clearinghouse, or similar type of organization. In lieu of a notice, the OCC may accept a copy of an application, notice, or report submitted to another Federal agency that covers the proposed action and contains substantially the same information required by the OCC. A national bank shall furnish the OCC with any additional information the OCC may require in connection with the national bank's foreign operations.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of five persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to one or more of the following authorities: Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, E.O. 13573, and E.O. 13582.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on March 31, 2015, as further specified below.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On March 31, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following three persons pursuant to E.O. 13382, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters”:
1. DENISE COMPANY, Tayyouneh-Bdeir Building, 2nd Floor, Beirut, Lebanon [NPWMD].
2. SHADI FOR CARS TRADING, Tayyouneh-Bdeir Building, 2nd Floor, Beirut, Lebanon [NPWMD].
3. SIGMA TECH COMPANY, Fayez Mansour Street, Bldg No/35/-Floor No/2/Baramkeh, P.O. Box 34081, Damascus, Syria [NPWMD].
On March 31, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following person pursuant to E.O. 13582, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria”:
1. RIDA, Batoul; DOB 01 Jun 1982; citizen Syria (individual) [SYRIA].
On March 31, 2015, OFAC published the following revised information for the following person on OFAC's SDN List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13573, “Blocking Property of Senior Officials of The Government of Syria”:
1. MAYALEH, Adib (a.k.a. ANDRE, Miyal; a.k.a. MAYALA, Adib; a.k.a. MAYARD, Andre); DOB 1955; POB Daraa, Syria; Governor of Central Bank of Syria (individual) [SYRIA].
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held May 5, 2015.
Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or (954) 423-7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday May 5, 2015 at 1:00 p.m.. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information please contact: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or (954) 423-7977 or write: TAP Office, 1000 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324 or contact us at the Web site:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of Meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 13, 2015.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 13, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Otis Simpson. For more information please contact: Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332, TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Request for applications.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests applications of individuals to be considered for selection as members of the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC). Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualification for IRSAC membership, including the applicant's knowledge of Circular 230 regulations and the applicant's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that the applicant wishes to represent on the council. Applications will be accepted from qualified individuals and from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representatives on the IRSAC. The IRSAC is comprised of up to thirty-five (35) members. Applications are currently being accepted for approximately five appointments that will begin in January 2016. It is important that the IRSAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity, selection is based on the applicant's qualifications as well as areas of expertise, geographic diversity, major stakeholder representation and customer segments.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) provides an organized public forum for IRS officials and representatives of the public to discuss relevant tax administration issues. The council advises the IRS on issues that have a substantive effect on federal tax administration. As an advisory body designed to focus on broad policy matters, the IRSAC reviews existing tax policy and/or recommends policies with respect to emerging tax administration issues. The IRSAC suggests operational improvements, offers constructive observations regarding current or proposed IRS policies, programs, and procedures, and advises the IRS with respect to issues having substantive effect on federal tax administration.
Written applications will be accepted from May 1, 2015 through June 26, 2015.
Applications should be sent to the Internal Revenue Service, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:P, Room 7559 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: Ms. Lorenza Wilds; or by email:
Ms. Lorenza Wilds, 202-317-6851 (not a toll-free number).
IRSAC was authorized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463., the first Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue—or the Commissioner's Advisory Group (“CAG”)—was established in 1953 as a “national policy and/or issue advisory committee.” Renamed in 1998, the
Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities, the IRSAC is comprised of individuals who bring substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds on the Council's activities. Membership is balanced to include representation from the taxpaying public, the tax professional community, small and large businesses, international, wage and investment taxpayers and the knowledge of Circular 230.
IRSAC members are appointed by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury to serve a three year term. IRSAC may form subcommittees (or subgroups) for any purpose consistent with the charter. These subcommittees must report directly to the IRSAC parent committee.
Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation to and from airports, train stations, etc., are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
An acknowledgment of receipt will be sent to all applicants. In accordance with the Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including, annual tax checks, and a practitioner check with the Return Preparer Office, and the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted. In addition, all applicants deemed “best qualified” will have to undergo a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint check.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRSAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. The IRS has special interest in assuring that women and men, members of all races and national origins, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on advisory committees: And therefore, extends particular encouragement to nominations from such appropriately qualified candidates.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 7, 2015.
Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or (206) 946-3006.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 7, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206 946-3006, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174, or post comments to the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 14, 2015.
Theresa Singleton at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3329.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 14, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Theresa Singleton. For more information please contact: Theresa Singleton at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3329, TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 7, 2015.
Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Thursday, May 7, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kim Vinci. For more information please contact: Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086, TAP Office, 4330 Watt Ave, Sacramento, CA 95821, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 27, 2015.
Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Wednesday, May 27, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2015.
Linda Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2015, in Room 730 at 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m., and is open to the public. Anyone attending must show a valid photo ID to building security and be escorted to the meeting. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
The agenda will include Annual Ethics Training and a presentation on the Communications Strategic Plan.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend, or needing further information may contact Pauline Cilladi-Rehrer, Designated Federal Officer, ORD (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5607, or by email at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from SAExploration, Inc. (SAE) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to a marine 3-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic surveys program in the state and federal waters of the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, during the open-water season of 2015. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SAE to incidentally take, by Level A and Level B Harassments, marine mammals during the specified activity.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 14, 2015.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
NMFS is also preparing draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. The draft EA will be posted at the foregoing internet site.
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On December 2, 2014, NMFS received an application from SAE for the taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic survey program in the Beaufort Sea. After receiving NMFS comments, SAE made revisions and updated its IHA application on December 5, 2014, January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and again on February 16, 2015. In addition, NMFS received the marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) from SAE on December 2, 2014, with an updated version on January 29, 2015. NMFS determined that the application and the 4MP were adequate and complete on February 17, 2015.
SAE proposes to conduct 3D OBN seismic surveys in the state and federal waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic open-water season. The proposed activity would occur between July 1 and October 15, 2015. The actual seismic survey is expected to take approximately 70 days, dependent of weather. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: seismic airgun operations and associated navigation sonar and vessel movements. Takes, by Level A and/or Level B Harassments, of individuals of six species of marine mammals are anticipated to result from the specified activity.
SAE also conducted OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea in the 2014 Arctic open-water season (79 FR 51963; September 2, 2014).
On December 2, 2014, NMFS received an application from SAE requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting an open-water 3D OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska. After addressing comments from NMFS and the peer-review panel, SAE modified its application and submitted revised applications on December 5, 2014, January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and again on February 16, 2015, with 4MP on December 2, 2014 and an updated version on January 29, 2015. SAE's proposed activities discussed here are based on its February 17, 2015, IHA application, and January 29, 2015, 4MP.
The proposed 3D OBN seismic survey is planned for the 2015 open-water
SAE's planned 3D seismic survey would occur in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea between Harrison Bay and the Sagavanirktok River delta. SAE plans to survey a maximum of 777 km
The proposed marine seismic operations will be based on a “recording patch” or similar approach. Patches are groups of six receiver lines and 32 source lines (Figure 1-2 of SAE's IHA application). Each receiver line has submersible marine sensor nodes tethered equidistant (50 m; 165 ft) from each other along the length of the line. Each node is a multicomponent system containing three velocity sensors and a hydrophone. Each receiver line is approximately 8 km (5 mi) in length, and are spaced approximately 402 m (1,320 ft) apart. Each receiver patch is 19.4 km
Source lines, 12 km (7.5 mi) long and spaced 502 m (1,650 ft) apart, run perpendicular to the receiver lines (and perpendicular to the coast) and, where possible, will extend approximately 5 km (3 mi) beyond the outside receiver lines and approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) beyond each of the ends of the receiver lines. The outside dimensions of the maximum shot area during a patch shoot will be 12 km by 16 m (7.5 mi by 10 mi) or 192 km
During recording of one patch, nodes from the previously surveyed patch will be retrieved, recharged, and data downloaded prior to redeployment of the nodes to the next patch. As patches are recorded, receiver lines are moved side to side or end to end to the next patch location so that receiver lines have continuous coverage of the recording area.
Autonomous recording nodes lack cables but will be tethered together using a thin rope for ease of retrieval. This rope will lay on the seabed surface, as will the nodes, and will have no effect on marine traffic. Primary vessel positioning will be achieved using GPS with the antenna attached to the airgun array. Pingers deployed from the node vessels will be used for positioning of nodes. The geometry/patch could be modified as operations progress to improve sampling and operational efficiency.
The acoustic sources of primary concern are the airguns that will be deployed from the seismic source vessels. However, there are other noise sources to be addressed including the pingers and transponders associated with locating receiver nodes, as well as propeller noise from the vessel fleet.
The primary seismic source for offshore recording consists of a 620-cubic-inch (in
Based on manufacturer specifications, the 1,240-in
A 10-in
An acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to position and interpolate the location of the nodes. A vessel-mounted transceiver calculates the position of the nodes by measuring the range and bearing from the transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted to every third node. The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the transponders, which respond with short pulses that are used in measuring the range and bearing. The system provides a precise location of every node as needed for accurate interpretation of the seismic data. The transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne Scout USBL, while transponders will be the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815-000-06. Because the transceiver and transponder communicate via sonar, they produce underwater sound levels. The Scout USBL transceiver has a transmission source level of 197 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m and operates at frequencies between 35 and 55 kHz. The transponder produces short pulses of 184 to 187 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m at frequencies also between 35 and 55 kHz.
Both transceivers and transponders produce noise levels just above or within the most sensitive hearing range of seals (10 to 30 kHz; Schusterman 1981) and odontocetes (12 to ~100 kHz; Wartzok and Ketten 1999), and the functional hearing range of baleen whales (20 Hz to 30 kHz; NRC 2003); although baleen whale hearing is probably most sensitive nearer 1 kHz (Richardson
Several offshore vessels will be required to support recording, shooting, and housing in the marine and transition zone environments. The exact vessels that will be used have not yet been determined. However, the types of vessels that will be used to fulfill these roles are found in Table 1.
Source Vessels—Source vessels will have the ability to deploy two arrays off the stern using large A-frames and winches and have a draft shallow enough to operate in waters less than 1.5 m (5 ft) deep. On the source vessels the airgun arrays are typically mounted on the stern deck with an umbilical that allow the arrays to be deployed and towed from the stern without having to re-rig or move arrays. A large bow deck will allow for sufficient space for source compressors and additional airgun equipment to be stored. The marine vessels likely to be used will be the same or similar to those that were acoustically measured by Aerts
Recording Deployment and Retrieval Vessels—Jet driven shallow draft vessels and bow pickers will be used for the deployment and retrieval of the offshore recording equipment. These vessels will be rigged with hydraulically driven deployment and retrieval squirters allowing for automated deployment and retrieval from the bow or stern of the vessel. These vessels will also carry the recording equipment on the deck in fish totes. Aerts
Housing and Transfer Vessels—Housing vessel(s) will be larger with sufficient berthing to house crews and management. The housing vessel will have ample office and bridge space to facilitate the role as the mother ship and central operations. Crew transfer vessels will be sufficiently large to safely transfer crew between vessels as needed. Aerts
The Beaufort Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. Table 2 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area.
The highlighted (grayed out) species in Table 2 are so rarely sighted in the proposed project area that take is unlikely. Minke whales are relatively common in the Bering and southern Chukchi Seas and have recently also been sighted in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (Aerts
The Beaufort Sea is a main corridor of the bowhead whale migration route. The main migration periods occur in spring from April to June and in fall from late August/early September through October to early November. During the fall migration, several locations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea serve as feeding grounds for bowhead whales. Small numbers of bowhead whales that remain in the U.S. Arctic Ocean during summer also feed in these areas. The U.S. Beaufort Sea is not a main feeding or calving area for any other cetacean species. Ringed seals breed and pup in the Beaufort Sea; however, this does not occur during the summer or early fall. Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in SAE's application (see
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's intensity and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB increase is a 10-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold increase in power). A 10-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being 10 times louder, however. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall
• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz;
• Phocid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
• Otariid pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal species (five cetaceans and four phocid pinnipeds) may occur in the proposed seismic survey area. Of the five cetacean species likely to occur in the proposed project area and for which take is requested, two are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industry activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water at distances of many kilometers. Numerous studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show no apparent response to industry activities of various types (Miller
Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar frequencies. Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000). Masking, or auditory interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that are trying to receive acoustic information about their environment, including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of animals, or entire populations.
Masking occurs when anthropogenic sounds and signals (that the animal utilizes) overlap at both spectral and temporal scales. For the airgun sound generated from the proposed seismic survey, sound will consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less than one second). Lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. There is little concern regarding masking near the sound source due to the brief duration of these pulses and relatively longer silence between airgun shots (approximately 5-6 seconds). However, at long distances (over tens of kilometers away), due to multipath propagation and reverberation, the durations of airgun pulses can be “stretched” to seconds with long decays (Madsen
This could affect communication signals used by low frequency mysticetes when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions, masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies might suggest (Richardson
These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva
Marine mammals may behaviorally react when exposed to anthropogenic sound. These behavioral reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located; and/or flight responses (
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification have the potential to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Examples of significant behavioral modifications include:
• Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, current activity, reproductive state) and is also difficult to predict (Gordon
Results of studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined
Malme
During their study, Patenaude
Richardson
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers sometimes see dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but, in general, there seems to be a tendency for most delphinids to show some limited avoidance of seismic vessels operating large airgun systems. However, some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when large arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, there have been indications that small toothed whales sometimes move away or maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (
Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of more relevance in this project) beluga whales exhibit changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the United Kingdom from 1997-2000 have provided data on the occurrence and behavior of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; Gordon
Reactions of toothed whales to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for mysticetes. However, based on the limited existing evidence, belugas should not be grouped with delphinids in the “less responsive” category.
Patenaude
Blackwell
When animals exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (
The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing auditory TS: effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output (Southall
PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
Although the published body of scientific literature contains numerous
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Non-auditory physical effects might occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (
Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky
In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical “fight or flight” response, which includes the cardiovascular system, the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with “stress.” These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987), altered metabolism (Elasser
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion. For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases, the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state which is called “distress” (sensu Seyle, 1950) or “allostatic loading” (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton
For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of stress responses in humans (
Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics. Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains limited, we assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather information about its environment and communicate with other members of its species would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and because marine mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress responses. More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also assumes that stress responses could persist beyond the time interval required for animals to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral responses to TTS.
Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble formations (Crum
In general, very little is known about the potential for strong, anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall
Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosive can be killed or severely injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten
Active acoustic sources other than the airguns have been proposed for SAE's 2015 seismic survey in Beaufort Sea, Alaska. In general, the potential effects of this equipment on marine mammals are similar to those from the airguns, except the magnitude of the impacts is expected to be much less due to the lower intensity of the source.
Vessel activity and noise associated with vessel activity will temporarily increase in the action area during SAE's seismic survey as a result of the operation of about 8 vessels. To minimize the effects of vessels and noise associated with vessel activity, SAE will alter speed if a marine mammal gets too close to a vessel. In addition, source vessels will be operating at slow speed (4-5 knots) when conducting surveys. Marine mammal monitoring observers will alert vessel captains as animals are detected to ensure safe and effective measures are applied to avoid coming into direct contact with marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS neither anticipates nor authorizes takes of marine mammals from ship strikes.
McCauley
Palka and Hammond (2001) analyzed line transect census data in which the orientation and distance off transect line were reported for large numbers of minke whales. The authors developed a method to account for effects of animal movement in response to sighting platforms. Minor changes in locomotion speed, direction, and/or diving profile were reported at ranges from 1,847 to 2,352 ft (563 to 717 m) at received levels of 110 to 120 dB.
Odontocetes, such as beluga whales, killer whales, and harbor porpoises, often show tolerance to vessel activity; however, they may react at long distances if they are confined by ice, shallow water, or were previously harassed by vessels (Richardson
There are few data published on pinniped responses to vessel activity, and most of the information is anecdotal (Richardson
The addition of the vessels and noise due to vessel operations associated with the seismic survey is not expected to
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by airguns and other active acoustic sources. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat from the specified activity. Because the marine mammals in the area feed on fish and/or invertebrates there is also information on the species typically preyed upon by the marine mammals in the area.
All of the marine mammal species that may occur in the proposed project area prey on either marine fish or invertebrates. The ringed seal feeds on fish and a variety of benthic species, including crabs and shrimp. Bearded seals feed mainly on benthic organisms, primarily crabs, shrimp, and clams. Spotted seals feed on pelagic and demersal fish, as well as shrimp and cephalopods. They are known to feed on a variety of fish including herring, capelin, sand lance, Arctic cod, saffron cod, and sculpins. Ribbon seals feed primarily on pelagic fish and invertebrates, such as shrimp, crabs, squid, octopus, cod, sculpin, pollack, and capelin. Juveniles feed mostly on krill and shrimp.
Bowhead whales feed in the eastern Beaufort Sea during summer and early autumn but continue feeding to varying degrees while on their migration through the central and western Beaufort Sea in the late summer and fall (Richardson and Thomson [eds.], 2002). When feeding in relatively shallow areas, bowheads feed throughout the water column. However, feeding is concentrated at depths where zooplankton is concentrated (Wursig
Recent articles and reports have noted bowhead whales feeding in several areas of the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The Barrow area is commonly used as a feeding area during spring and fall, with a higher proportion of photographed individuals displaying evidence of feeding in fall rather than spring (Mocklin, 2009). A bowhead whale feeding “hotspot” (Okkonen
The 2006-2008 BWASP Final Report (Clarke
Beluga whales feed on a variety of fish, shrimp, squid and octopus (Burns and Seaman, 1985). Very few beluga whales occur nearshore; their main migration route is much further offshore. Like several of the other species in the area, harbor porpoise feed on demersal and benthic species, mainly schooling fish and cephalopods. Depending on the type of killer whale (transient or resident), they feed on fish and/or marine mammals. However, harbor porpoises and killer whales are not commonly found in Prudhoe Bay.
Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders, and benthic amphipods and isopods form the majority of their summer diet, at least in the main summering areas west of Alaska (Oliver
Two kinds of fish inhabit marine waters in the study area: (1) True marine fish that spend all of their lives in salt water, and (2) anadromous species that reproduce in fresh water and spend parts of their life cycles in salt water.
Most arctic marine fish species are small, benthic forms that do not feed high in the water column. The majority of these species are circumpolar and are found in habitats ranging from deep offshore water to water as shallow as 16.4-33 ft (5-10 m; Fechhelm
Anadromous Dolly Varden char and some species of whitefish winter in rivers and lakes, migrate to the sea in spring and summer, and return to fresh water in autumn. Anadromous fish form the basis of subsistence, commercial, and small regional sport fisheries. Dolly Varden char migrate to the sea from May through mid-June (Johnson, 1980) and spend about 1.5-2.5 months there (Craig, 1989). They return to rivers beginning in late July or early August with the peak return migration occurring between mid-August and early September (Johnson, 1980). At sea, most anadromous corregonids
Benthic organisms are defined as bottom dwelling creatures. Infaunal organisms are benthic organisms that live within the substrate and are often sedentary or sessile (bivalves, polychaetes). Epibenthic organisms live on or near the bottom surface sediments and are mobile (amphipods, isopods, mysids, and some polychaetes). Epifauna, which live attached to hard substrates, are rare in the Beaufort Sea because hard substrates are scarce there. A small community of epifauna, the Boulder Patch, occurs in Stefansson Sound.
Many of the nearshore benthic marine invertebrates of the Arctic are circumpolar and are found over a wide range of water depths (Carey
Nearshore benthic fauna have been studied in Beaufort Sea lagoons and near the mouth of the Colville River (Kinney
With regard to fish as a prey source for odontocetes and seals, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
Fishes produce sounds that are associated with behaviors that include territoriality, mate search, courtship, and aggression. It has also been speculated that sound production may provide the means for long distance communication and communication under poor underwater visibility conditions (Zelick
Since objects in the water scatter sound, fish are able to detect these objects through monitoring the ambient noise. Therefore, fish are probably able to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, and physical features by listening to environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). There are two sensory systems that enable fish to monitor the vibration-based information of their surroundings. The two sensory systems, the inner ear and the lateral line, constitute the acoustico-lateralis system.
Although the hearing sensitivities of very few fish species have been studied to date, it is becoming obvious that the intra- and inter-specific variability is considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell
Literature relating to the impacts of sound on marine fish species can be divided into the following categories: (1) Pathological effects; (2) physiological effects; and (3) behavioral effects. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal physical damage to fish; physiological effects include primary and secondary stress responses; and behavioral effects include changes in exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral changes might be a direct reaction to a detected sound or a result of the anthropogenic sound masking natural sounds that the fish normally detect and to which they respond. The three types of effects are often interrelated in complex ways. For example, some physiological and behavioral effects could potentially lead to the ultimate pathological effect of mortality. Hastings and Popper (2005) reviewed what is known about the effects of sound on fishes and identified studies needed to address areas of uncertainty relative to measurement of sound and the responses of fishes. Popper
Potential effects of exposure to sound on marine fish include TTS, physical damage to the ear region, physiological stress responses, and behavioral responses such as startle response, alarm response, avoidance, and perhaps lack of response due to masking of acoustic cues. Most of these effects appear to be either temporary or intermittent and therefore probably do not significantly impact the fish at a population level. The studies that resulted in physical damage to the fish ears used noise exposure levels and durations that were far more extreme than would be encountered under conditions similar to those expected during SAE's proposed survey.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona, 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
Investigations of fish behavior in relation to vessel noise (Olsen
Short, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior. Chapman and Hawkins (1969) tested the reactions of whiting (hake) in the field to an airgun. When the airgun was fired, the fish dove from 82 to 180 ft (25 to 55 m) depth and formed a compact layer. The whiting dove when received sound levels were higher than 178 dB re 1 μPa (Pearson
Pearson
• Startle responses at received levels of 200-205 dB re 1 µPa and above for two sensitive species, but not for two other species exposed to levels up to 207 dB;
• Alarm responses at 177-180 dB for the two sensitive species, and at 186 to 199 dB for other species;
• An overall threshold for the above behavioral response at about 180 dB;
• An extrapolated threshold of about 161 dB for subtle changes in the behavior of rockfish; and
• A return to pre-exposure behaviors within the 20-60 minute exposure period.
In summary, fish often react to sounds, especially strong and/or intermittent sounds of low frequency. Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB re 1 µPa may cause subtle changes in behavior. Pulses at levels of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson
Some of the fish species found in the Arctic are prey sources for odontocetes and pinnipeds. A reaction by fish to sounds produced by SAEs proposed survey would only be relevant to marine mammals if it caused concentrations of fish to vacate the area. Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause that type of reaction would probably occur only very close to the sound source, if any would occur at all. Impacts on fish behavior are predicted to be inconsequential. Thus, feeding odontocetes and pinnipeds would not be adversely affected by this minimal loss or scattering, if any, of reduced prey abundance.
Some mysticetes, including bowhead whales, feed on concentrations of zooplankton. Some feeding bowhead whales may occur in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in July and August, but feeding bowheads are more likely to occur in the area after the cessation of airgun operations. Reactions of zooplankton to sound are, for the most part, not known. Their ability to move significant distances is limited or nil, depending on the type of zooplankton. Behavior of zooplankters is not expected to be affected by the survey. These animals have exoskeletons and no air bladders. Many crustaceans can make sounds, and some crustacea and other invertebrates have some type of sound receptor. A reaction by zooplankton to sounds produced by the seismic survey would only be relevant to whales if it caused concentrations of zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause that type of reaction would probably occur only very close to the sound source, if any would occur at all. Impacts on zooplankton behavior are predicted to be inconsequential. Thus, feeding mysticetes would not be adversely affected by this minimal loss or scattering, if any, of reduced zooplankton abundance.
Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
For the proposed SAE open-water 3D OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea, NMFS worked with SAE to propose the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity as a result of SAE's survey activities. The primary purpose of these mitigation measures is to detect marine mammals within, or about to enter, designated exclusion zones and to initiate immediate shutdown or power down of the airgun(s).
Under current NMFS guidelines, the “exclusion zone” for marine mammal exposure to impulse sources is customarily defined as the area within which received sound levels are ≥180 dB (rms) re 1 μPa for cetaceans and ≥190 dB (rms) re 1 μPa for pinnipeds. These safety criteria are based on an assumption that SPL received at levels lower than these will not injure these animals or impair their hearing abilities, but at higher levels might have some such effects. Disturbance or behavioral effects to marine mammals from underwater sound may occur after exposure to sound at distances greater than the exclusion zones (Richardson
In 2014, Heath
Sound source studies have not been done for the 1,240-in
These mitigation measures apply to all vessels that are part of SAE's Beaufort Sea seismic survey activities, including supporting vessels.
• Avoid concentrations or groups of whales. Operators of vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum distance possible from such concentrations or groups of whales.
• If any vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
○ Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards (900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
○ Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
○ Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
○ Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and
○ Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
• Reduce vessel speed, not to exceed 5 knots, when weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.
The primary requirements for airgun mitigation during the seismic surveys are to monitor marine mammals near the airgun array during all daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime start-up of the airguns and, if any marine mammals are observed, to adjust airgun operations, as necessary, according to the mitigation measures described below. During the seismic surveys, PSOs will monitor the pre-established exclusion zones for the presence of marine mammals. When marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety zones, PSOs have the authority to call for immediate power down (or shutdown) of airgun operations, as required by the situation. A summary of the procedures associated with each mitigation measure is provided below.
A ramp up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume is achieved. The purpose of a ramp up (or “soft start”) is to “warn” cetaceans and pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities.
During the open-water survey program, the seismic operator will ramp up the airgun arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (
Throughout the seismic survey, during turning movements and short transits, SAE will employ the use of the smallest-volume airgun (
During turns or brief transits (
A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating energy sources from all firing to some smaller number (
SAE plans to conduct 24-hour operations. PSOs will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations during darkness, given the very limited effectiveness of visual observation at night (there will be no periods of darkness in the survey area until mid-August). The provisions associated with operations at night or in periods of poor visibility include the following:
• If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or darkness (which may be encountered starting in late August), the full 180 dB exclusion zone is not visible, the airguns cannot commence a ramp-up procedure from a full shut-down.
• If one or more airguns have been operational before nightfall or before the onset of poor visibility conditions, they can remain operational throughout the night or poor visibility conditions. In this case ramp-up procedures can be initiated, even though the exclusion zone may not be visible, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and have moved away.
NMFS has carefully evaluated SAE's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measures are expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of seismic airguns, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of seismic airguns or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Proposed measures to ensure availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses are discussed later in this document (see “Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses” section).
In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. SAE submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period or from the peer review panel (see the “Monitoring Plan Peer Review” section later in this document).
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action,
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: the long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
Monitoring will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by the exploration operations and facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent injury of marine mammals by industrial sounds or activities. These goals will be accomplished in the Beaufort Sea during 2015 by conducting vessel-based monitoring and passive acoustic monitoring to document marine mammal presence and distribution in the vicinity of the survey area.
Visual monitoring by Protected Species Observers (PSOs) during seismic survey operations, and periods when these surveys are not occurring, will provide information on the numbers of marine mammals potentially affected by these activities and facilitate real-time mitigation to prevent impacts to marine mammals by industrial sounds or operations. Vessel-based PSOs onboard the survey vessels and mitigation vessel will record the numbers and species of marine mammals observed in the area and any observable reaction of marine mammals to the survey activities in the Beaufort Sea.
The visual-based marine mammal monitoring will be implemented by a team of experienced PSOs, including both biologists and Inupiat personnel. PSOs will be stationed aboard both survey vessels through the duration of the project. The vessel-based marine mammal monitoring will provide the basis for real-time mitigation measures as discussed in the Mitigation Measures section. In addition, monitoring results of the vessel-based monitoring program will include the estimation of the number of “takes” as stipulated in the IHA.
Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals will be done by trained PSOs throughout the period of survey activities. The observers will monitor the occurrence of marine mammals near the survey vessel during all daylight periods during operation, and during most daylight periods when operations are not occurring. PSO duties will include watching for and identifying marine mammals; recording their numbers, distances, and reactions to the survey operations; and documenting “take by harassment.”
A sufficient number of PSOs will be required onboard each survey vessel to meet the following criteria:
• 100% Monitoring coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight;
• Maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
• Maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
PSO teams will consist of Inupiat observers and experienced field biologists. Each vessel will have an experienced field crew leader to supervise the PSO team. The total number of PSOs may decrease later in the season as the duration of daylight decreases.
When onboard the seismic and support vessels, there are three major parts to the PSO position:
• Observe and record sensitive wildlife species;
• Ensure mitigation procedures are followed accordingly; and
• Follow monitoring and data collection procedures.
The main roles of the PSO and the monitoring program are to ensure compliance with regulations set in place by NMFS to ensure that disturbance of marine mammals is minimized, and potential effects on marine mammals are documented. The PSOs will implement the monitoring and mitigation measures specified in the IHA (if issued). The primary purposes of the PSOs on board of the vessels are:
• Mitigation: Implement mitigation clearing and ramp up measures, observe for and detect marine mammals within, or about to enter the applicable safety zone and implement necessary shut down, power down and speed/course alteration mitigation procedures when applicable. Advise marine crew of mitigation procedures.
• Monitoring: Observe for marine mammals and determine numbers of marine mammals exposed to sound pulses and their reactions (where applicable) and document those as required.
Crew leaders and most PSOs will be individuals with experience as observers during recent seismic, site clearance and shallow hazards, and other monitoring projects in Alaska or other offshore areas in recent years. New or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with an experienced PSO or experienced field biologist so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent.
Biologist-observers will have previous marine mammal observation experience, and field crew leaders will be highly experienced with previous vessel-based marine mammal monitoring and mitigation projects. Resumes for those individuals will be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers will be experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area. All observers will complete a NMFS-approved observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures.
PSOs will complete a 2-day or 3-day training and refresher session on marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the anticipated start of the 2015 open-water season. Any exceptions will have or receive equivalent experience or training. The training session(s) will be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based seismic monitoring programs.
Source vessels will employ PSOs to identify marine mammals during all hours of airgun operations. To better observe the exclusion zone, a lead PSO, one or two PSOs, and an Inupiaq communicator will be on primary source vessel and two PSOs will be stationed aboard the secondary source vessel. (The total number of observers is limited by available berthing space aboard the vessels.) The three to four total observers aboard the primary source vessel will allow two observers simultaneously on watch during daylight hours.
The PSOs will watch for marine mammals during all periods of source operations and for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun or pinger operations after an extended shutdown. Marine mammal monitoring shall continue throughout airgun operations and last for 30 minutes after the finish of airgun firing. SAE vessel crew and operations personnel will also watch for marine mammals, as practical, to assist and alert the PSOs for the airgun(s) to be shut down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the exclusion zone.
The PSOs will watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge. The PSOs will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (
The observers will give particular attention to the areas within the marine mammal exclusion zones around the source vessels. These zones are the maximum distances within which received levels may exceed 180 dB (rms) re 1 µPa (rms) for cetaceans, or 190 dB (rms) re 1 µPa for pinnipeds.
When a marine mammal is seen approaching or within the exclusion zone applicable to that species, the seismic survey crew will be notified immediately so that mitigation measures called for in the applicable authorization(s) can be implemented.
Night-vision equipment (Generation 3 binocular image intensifiers or equivalent units) will be available for use if and when needed. Past experience with night-vision devices (NVDs) in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere has indicated that NVDs are not nearly as effective as visual observation during daylight hours (
The PSOs will record field observation data and information about marine mammal sightings that include:
• Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable);
• Physical description of features that were observed or determined not to be present in the case of unknown or unidentified animals;
• Behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent);
• Bearing and distance from observer, apparent reaction to activities (
• Time, location, speed, and activity of the source and mitigation vessels, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and sun glare; and
• Positions of other vessel(s) in the vicinity.
Since the same airgun array of 620 in
The results of the SSV will be submitted to NMFS within five days after completing the measurements, followed by a report to be submitted within 14 days after completion of the measurements. A more detailed report will be provided to NMFS as part of the required 90-day report following completion of the acoustic program.
SAE proposes to conduct Passive Acoustical Monitoring (PAM) using specialized autonomous passive acoustical recorders. These recorders will be deployed on the seabed and will record continuously. The recorders will sit directly on the seabed and will be attached to a ground line with a small weight at its end. Each recorder will be retrieved by using a grapple to catch the ground line and recover the unit.
Passive acoustic recorders will be deployed in an arrangement surrounding the survey area for the purposes of PAM. The data collected will be used for post-season analysis of marine mammal vocalization detections to help inform an assessment of potential disturbance effects. The PAM data will also provide information about the long-range propagation of the airgun noise.
PAM recordings will be processed at the end of the season using marine mammal detection and classification software capable of detecting vocalizations from marine mammals. Particular attention will be given to the detection of bowhead whale vocalizations since this is a species of particular concern due to its importance for local subsistence hunting.
PAM recordings will also be used to detect and quantify airgun pulses from the survey as recorded on the PAM recorders, to provide information about the long-range propagation of the survey noise.
The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed “where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses” (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this requirement, NMFS' implementing regulations state, “Upon receipt of a complete monitoring plan, and at its discretion, [NMFS] will either submit the plan to members of a peer review panel for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan” (50 CFR 216.108(d)).
NMFS has established an independent peer review panel to review SAE's 4MP for the proposed seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. The panel has met in early March 2015, and will provide comments to NMFS in April 2015. After completion of the peer review, NMFS will consider all recommendations made by the panel, incorporate appropriate changes into the monitoring requirements of the IHA (if issued), and publish the panel's findings and recommendations in the final IHA notice of issuance or denial document.
As discussed earlier, if SAE plans to use the 1,240 in
SAE will submit weekly reports to NMFS no later than the close of business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when seismic surveys take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-
SAE will submit monthly reports to NMFS for all months during which seismic surveys take place. The monthly reports will contain and summarize the following information:
• Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and associated activities during the seismic survey and marine mammal sightings.
• Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated surveys (number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
• An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to the seismic surveys (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans that have been exposed to the geophysical activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
The results of SAE's 2015 vessel-based monitoring, including estimates of “take” by harassment, will be presented first in a “90-day” draft Technical Report, to be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic survey, and then in a final Technical Report, which will address any comments NMFS had on the draft. The Technical Report will include:
(a) Summaries of monitoring effort (
(b) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
(c) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(d) Data analysis separated into periods when a seismic airgun array (or a single mitigation airgun) is operating and when it is not, to better assess impacts to marine mammals—the final and comprehensive report to NMFS should summarize and plot:
• Data for periods when a seismic array is active and when it is not; and
• The respective predicted received sound conditions over fairly large areas (tens of km) around operations;
(e) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as:
• Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
• Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
• Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun activity state;
• Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun activity state;
• Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun activity state; and
• Estimates of take by harassment;
(f) Results from all hypothesis tests, including estimates of the associated statistical power, when practicable;
(g) Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available;
(h) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes; and
(5) Notification of Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as a serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with SAE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE would not be able to resume its activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that SAE discovers a dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that SAE discovers a dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
SAE was issued an IHA for a 3D OBN seismic survey in the same area of the proposed 2015 seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2014 Arctic open-water season. SAE conducted the seismic survey between August 25 and September 30, 2014. The technical report (90-day report) submitted by SAE indicates that one beluga whale and 2
Based on the monitoring results from SAE's 2014 seismic survey, NMFS is re-evaluating the potential effects on marine mammals and requested SAE to conduct analysis on potential Level A takes (see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section below).
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Takes by Level A and Level B harassments of some species are anticipated as a result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey. NMFS expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from operation of seismic airguns. NMFS does not expect marine mammals would be taken by collision with seismic and support vessels, because the vessels will be moving at low speeds, and PSOs on the survey vessels and the mitigation vessel will be monitoring for marine mammals and will be able to alert the vessels to avoid any marine mammals in the area.
For impulse sounds, such as those produced by the airguns proposed to be used in SAE's 3D OBN seismic surveys, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 160 dB (rms) re 1 μPa isopleth for Level B harassment of all marine mammals. SAE provided calculations of the 190-, 180-, and 160-dB isopleths expected to be produced by the proposed seismic surveys and then used those isopleths to estimate takes by harassment. NMFS used those calculations to make the necessary MMPA findings. SAE provided a full description of the methodology used to estimate takes by harassment in its IHA application, which is also provided in the following sections.
The acoustical footprint that could cause harassment (Levels A and B) was determined by placing a 160-dB isopleth buffer around the area that would be surveyed (shot) during the 2015 open water season (777 km
There are no precise estimates for the 1,240-in
Because the exact location of the 2015 shoot area is currently unknown, the distribution of marine mammal habitat within the shoot area is unknown. However, within the 4,562 km
Density estimates were derived for bowhead whales, beluga whales, ringed seals, spotted seals, and bearded seals as described below and shown in Table 4. There are no available Beaufort Sea density estimates for gray whales, or extralimital species such as humpback whales, narwhals, and ribbon seals. Encountering these animals during the seismic program would be unexpected. The density derivations for the five species presented in Table 4 are provided in the discussions below.
Fall density estimate was determined from September and October ASAMM data collected from 2006 to 2013. The Western Arctic stock of bowhead whale has grown considerably since the late 1970s; thus, data collected prior to 2006 probably does not well represent current whale densities. From 2006 to 2013, 1,286 bowhead whales were recorded along 84,400 km of transect line, or 0.1524 per km. Using an ESW of 1.15 results in an uncorrected density of 0.0066.
ASAMM aerial survey data was collected during summer and fall 2014, and is available to view as daily reports (
During the summer aerial surveys conducted during the 2012 and 2013 ASAMM program (Clarke
Calculated fall beluga densities are approximately twice as high as summer. Between 2006 and 2013, 2,356 beluga were recorded along 83,631 km of transect line flown during September and October, or 0.0281 beluga per km of transect. Assuming an ESW of 0.614 gives an uncorrected density of 0.0229. However, unlike in summer, almost none of the fall migrating belugas were recorded in waters less than 20 m deep. For years where depth data is available (2006, 2009-2013), only 11 of 1,605 (1%) recorded belugas were found in waters less than 20 m during the fall. To take into account this bias in distribution, but to remain conservative, the corrected density estimate is reduced to 25%, or 0.0057.
Summer and fall beluga data was also collected in 2014, but as with the bowhead data mentioned above, it has not yet been checked for accuracy and, therefore, is not yet appropriate for estimating density (SAE, 2015). Regardless, the data that is available from online daily reports (
Green and Negri (2005) and Green
The estimated potential harassment take of local marine mammals by the SAE's Beaufort seismic project was determined by multiplying the seasonal animal densities in Table 4 with the seasonal area that would be ensonified by seismic-generated noise greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The total area that would be ensonified during 2015 is 1,463 km
The requested take authorization is found in Table 6, and includes requested authorization for gray whales in which the estimated take is zero, but for which records for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea occur. The requested take authorization for ringed seals and spotted seals has also been adjusted based on observations during SAE's 2014 seismic operations immediately east of the Colville River Delta (Lomac-MacNair
As discussed earlier in this section, NMFS considers that exposures to pinnipeds at noise levels above 190 dB and cetaceans at noise levels above 180 dB constitute Level A takes under the MMPA. Although brief exposure of marine mammals at these levels are not likely to cause TTS or PTS (Southall
The methods used in estimate Level A exposure is the same for Level B estimates,
The estimated Level A and Level B takes as a percentage of the marine mammal stock are 0.11% and 0.40% or less, respectively, in all cases (Table 6). The highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 0.11% for Level A and 0.40% for Level B harassments for the East Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whale. However, that percentage assumes that all beluga whales taken are from that population. Similarly, the 0.01% potential Level A and 0.04% Level B take percentage for the Beaufort Sea stock of beluga whale assumes that all 15 beluga whales are taken from the Beaufort Sea stock. Most likely, some beluga whales would be taken from each stock, meaning fewer than 15 beluga whales would be taken from either individual stock. Therefore, the Level A take of beluga whales as a percentage of populations would likely be below 0.11 and 0.01% for the Beaufort Sea and East Chukchi Sea stocks, respectively. The Level B takes of beluga whales as a percentage of populations would likely be below 0.40 and 0.04% for the Beaufort Sea and East Chukchi Sea stocks, respectively. However, the estimated numbers of Level A harassment do not take into consideration either avoidance or mitigation effectiveness. The actual takes are expected to be lower as animals will avoid areas where noise is intense. In addition, the prescribed mitigation measure will further reduce the number of animals being exposed to noise levels that constitute a Level A, thus further reducing Level A harassment.
The total takes represent less than 0.51% of any stocks of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area (Table 6).
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
No serious injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey, and none are proposed to be authorized. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment, and limited Level A harassment in terms of potential hearing threshold shifts. While the airguns are expected to be operated
Most of the bowhead whales encountered will likely show overt disturbance (avoidance) only if they receive airgun sounds with levels ≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa. Odontocete reactions to seismic airgun pulses are generally assumed to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun than are those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. However, at least when in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in summer, belugas appear to be fairly responsive to seismic energy, with few being sighted within 6-12 mi (10-20 km) of seismic vessels during aerial surveys (Miller
As noted, elevated background noise level from the seismic airgun reverberant field could cause acoustic masking to marine mammals and reduce their communication space. However, even though the decay of the signal is extended, the fact that pulses are separated by approximately 8 to 10 seconds for each individual source vessel (or 4 to 5 seconds when taking into account the two separate source vessels stationed 300 to 335 m apart) means that overall received levels at distance are expected to be much lower, thus resulting in less acoustic masking.
Most cetaceans (and particularly Arctic cetaceans) show relatively high levels of avoidance when received sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and it is uncommon to sight Arctic cetaceans within the 180 dB radius, especially for prolonged duration. Results from monitoring programs associated with seismic activities in the Arctic indicate that cetaceans respond in different ways to sound levels lower than 180 dB. These results have been used by agencies to support monitoring requirements within distances where received levels fall below 160 dB and even 120 dB. Thus, very few animals would be exposed to sound levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) regardless of detectability by PSOs. Avoidance varies among individuals and depends on their activities or reasons for being in the area, and occasionally a few individual Arctic cetaceans will tolerate sound levels above 160 dB. Tolerance of levels above 180 dB is infrequent regardless of the circumstances, and marine mammals exposed to levels this high are expected to avoid the source, thereby minimizing the probability of TTS. Therefore, a calculation of the number of cetaceans potentially exposed to >180 dB that is based simply on density would be a gross overestimate of the numbers expected to be exposed to 180 dB. Such calculations would be misleading unless avoidance response behaviors were taken into account to estimate what fraction of those originally present within the soon-to-be ensonified to >180 dB zone (as estimated from density) would still be there by the time levels reach 180 dB.
It is estimated that up to 5 bowhead whales and 4 beluga whales could be exposed to received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and 246 ringed seals and 12 bearded and spotted seals could be exposed to received noise levels above 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for durations long enough to cause TTS if the animals do not avoid are area for some reason and are not detected in time to have mitigation measures implemented (or even PTS if such exposures occurred repeatedly). None of the other species are expected to be exposed to received sound levels anticipated to cause TTS or PTS. However, the actual Level A takes are likely to be lower due to animals avoiding the injury zone and the mitigation implementation. The Level A takes estimated do not take into consideration either avoidance or mitigation effectiveness.
Marine mammals that are taken by TTS are expected to receive minor (in the order of several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although repeated experience to TTS could result in PTS (Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold. Therefore, even if a few marine mammals receive TTS or PTS, the degree of these effects are expected to be minor and, in the case of TTS, brief, and are not expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.
Taking into account the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on marine mammals are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around SAE's proposed open-water activities and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level A and Level B harassments.” The many reported cases of apparent tolerance by cetaceans to seismic exploration, vessel traffic, and some other human activities show that co-existence is possible. Mitigation measures, such as controlled vessel speed, dedicated marine mammal observers, non-pursuit, ramp up procedures, and shut downs or power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges, will further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, with no lasting biological consequence.
Of the marine mammal species or stocks likely to occur in the proposed seismic survey area, two are listed under the ESA: The bowhead whale and ringed seal. Those two species are also designated as “depleted” under the MMPA. Despite these designations, the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing at a rate of 3.4% annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2011), even in the face of ongoing industrial activity. Additionally, during the 2001 census, 121 calves were counted, which was the highest yet recorded. The calf count provides corroborating evidence for a healthy and increasing population (Allen and Angliss, 2011). Certain stocks or populations of gray and beluga whales and spotted seals are listed as endangered or are proposed for listing under the ESA; however, none of those stocks or populations occur in the proposed activity area. Ringed seals were recently listed under the ESA as threatened species, and are considered depleted under the MMPA. On July 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated NMFS' rule listing the Beringia bearded seal DPS as threatened and remanded the rule to NMFS to correct the deficiencies identified in the opinion. None of the other species that may occur in the project area is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. There is currently no established critical habitat in the proposed project area for any of these species.
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in
In addition, no important feeding or reproductive areas are known in the vicinity of SAE's proposed seismic surveys at the time the proposed surveys are to take place. No critical habitat of ESA-listed marine mammal species occurs in the Beaufort Sea.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
The requested takes proposed to be authorized represent less than 0.4% for Level B harassment and 0.11% for Level A harassment of all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 in this document). These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B behavioral harassment if each animal is taken only once. The numbers of marine mammals estimated to be taken are small proportions of the total populations of the affected species or stocks. In addition, the mitigation and monitoring measures (described previously in this document) proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued) are expected to reduce even further any potential disturbance and injuries to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
The proposed seismic activities will occur within the marine subsistence area used by the village of Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut was established in 1973 at a traditional location on the Colville River providing equal access to upland (
Cross Island is located 70 km (44 mi) east of the eastern boundary of the seismic survey box. (Point Barrow is over 180 km [110 mi] outside the potential survey box.) Seismic activities are unlikely to affect Barrow or Cross Island based whaling, especially if the seismic operations temporarily cease during the fall bowhead whale hunt.
Although Nuiqsut whalers may incidentally harvest beluga whales while hunting bowheads, these whales are rarely seen and are not actively pursued. Any harvest that would occur would most likely be in association with Cross Island.
The potential seismic survey area is also used by Nuiqsut villagers for hunting seals. All three seal species that are likely to be taken—ringed, spotted, and bearded—are hunted. Sealing begins in April and May when villagers hunt seals at breathing holes in Harrison Bay. In early June, hunting is concentrated at the mouth of the Colville River, where ice breakup flooding results in the ice thinning and seals becoming more visible.
Once the ice is clear of the Delta (late June), hunters will hunt in open boats along the ice edge from Harrison Bay to Thetis Island in a route called “round the world.” Thetis Island is important as it provides a weather refuge and a base for hunting bearded seals. During July and August, ringed and spotted seals are hunted in the lower 65 km (40 mi) of the Colville River proper.
In terms of pounds, approximately one-third of the village of Nuiqsut's annual subsistence harvest is marine mammals (fish and caribou dominate the rest), of which bowhead whales contribute by far the most (Fuller and George 1999). Seals contribute only 2 to 3% of annual subsistence harvest (Brower and Opie 1997, Brower and Hepa 1998, Fuller and George 1999). Fuller and George (1999) estimated that 46 seals were harvested in 1992. The more common ringed seals appear to dominate the harvest, although the larger and thicker-skinned bearded seals are probably preferred. Spotted seals occur in the Colville River Delta in small numbers, which is reflected in the harvest.
Available harvest records suggest that most seal harvest occurs in the months preceding the proposed August start of the seismic survey, when waning ice conditions provide the best opportunity to approach and kill hauled out seals. Much of the late summer seal harvest occurs in the Colville River as the seals follow fish runs upstream. Still, open-water seal hunting could occur coincident with the seismic surveys, especially bearded seal hunts based from Thetis Island. In general, however, given the relatively low contribution of seals to the Nuiqsut subsistence, and the greater opportunity to hunt seals earlier in the season, any potential impact by the seismic survey on seal hunting is likely remote.
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: “an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Noise and general activity during SAE's proposed 3D OBN seismic survey have the potential to impact marine mammals hunted by Native Alaskans. In the case of cetaceans, the most common
Responses of seals to seismic airguns are expected to be negligible. Bain and Williams (2006) studied the responses of harbor seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions to seismic airguns and found that seals at exposure levels above 170 dB re 1 μPa (peak-peak) often showed avoidance behavior, including generally staying at the surface and keeping their heads out of the water, but that the responses were not overt, and there were no detectable responses at low exposure levels.
Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) require IHA applicants for activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a Plan of Cooperation (POC) or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes.
SAE has prepared a draft POC, which was developed by identifying and evaluating any potential effects the proposed seismic survey might have on seasonal abundance that is relied upon for subsistence use. For the proposed project, SAE states that it is working closely with the North Slope Borough (NSB) and its partner Kuukpik Corporation, to identify subsistence communities and activities that may take place within or near the project area. The draft POC is attached to SAE's IHA application.
As a joint venture partner with Kuukpik, SAE will be working closely with them and the communities on the North Slope to plan operations that will include measures that are environmentally suitable and that do not impact local subsistence use. A Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) will be developed that will include such measures.
SAE adopted a three-stage process to develop its POC:
Prior to offshore activities, SAE will meet and consult with nearby communities, namely the North Slope Borough (NSB) planning department and the NSB Fish and Wildlife division. SAE will also present its project during a community meeting in the villages of Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik to discuss the planned activities. The discussions will include the project description, the Plan of Cooperation, resolution of potential conflicts, and proposed operational window. These meetings will help to identify any subsistence conflicts. These meetings will allow SAE to understand community concerns, and requests for communication or mitigation. Additional communications will continue throughout the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures will be imposed in order to effect the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal species for subsistence uses:
(i) Establishment and operations of Communication and Call Centers (Com-Center) Program
• For the purposes of reducing or eliminating conflicts between subsistence whaling activities and SAE's survey program, SAE will participate with other operators in the Com-Center Program. Com-Centers will be operated to facilitate communication of information between SAE and subsistence whalers. The Com-Centers will be operated 24 hours/day during the 2015 fall subsistence bowhead whale hunt.
• All vessels shall report to the appropriate Com-Center at least once every six hours, commencing each day with a call at approximately 06:00 hours.
• The appropriate Com-Center shall be notified if there is any significant change in plans, such as an unannounced start-up of operations or significant deviations from announced course, and that Com-Center shall notify all whalers of such changes. The appropriate Com-Center also shall be called regarding any unsafe or unanticipated ice conditions.
(ii) SAE shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels and exercise due care in avoiding any areas where subsistence activity is active.
(iii) Routing barge and transit vessels:
• Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles offshore.
• From August 31 to October 31, vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.
• Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no physical contact
• If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
○ reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s);
○ steering around the whale(s) if possible;
○ operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
○ operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and
○ checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
(iv) Limitation on seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea
• Kaktovik: No seismic survey from the Canadian Border to the Canning River from around August 25 to close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates. From around August 10 to August 25, based on the actual hunt dates, SAE will communicate and collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) on any planned vessel movement in and around Kaktovik and Cross Island to avoid impacts to whale hunting.
• Nuiqsut:
○ Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No seismic survey prior to July 25 inside the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey from around August 25 to close of fall bowhead whale hunting outside the Barrier Island in Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
○ Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No seismic survey from around August 25 to the close of bowhead whale subsistence hunting in Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
• Barrow: No seismic survey from Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay to a location about half way between Barrow and Peard Bay from September 15 to the close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in Barrow.
(v) SAE shall complete operations in time to allow such vessels to complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude no later than November 15, 2015. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude with the appropriate Com-Centers. SAE vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence Island.
Finally, SAE plans to sign a Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the Alaska whaling communities to further ensure that its proposed open-water seismic survey activities in the Beaufort Sea will not have unmitigable impacts to subsistence activities.
SAE has adopted a spatial and temporal strategy for its 3D OBN seismic survey that should minimize impacts to subsistence hunters and ensure the sufficient availability of species for hunters to meet subsistence needs. SAE will temporarily cease seismic activities during the fall bowhead whale hunt, which will allow the hunt to occur without any adverse impact from SAE's activities. Although some seal hunting co-occurs temporally with SAE's proposed seismic survey, the locations do not overlap, so SAE's activities will not impact the hunting areas and will not directly displace sealers or place physical barriers between the sealers and the seals. In addition, SAE is conducting the seismic surveys in a joint partnership agreement with Kuukpik Corporation, which allows SAE to work closely with the native communities on the North Slope to plan operations that include measures that are environmentally suitable and that do not impact local subsistence use, and to adjust the operations, if necessary, to minimize any potential impacts that might arise. Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from SAE's proposed activities.
Within the project area, the bowhead whale is listed as endangered and the ringed seal is listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division has initiated consultation with staff in NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to SAE under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on the issuance of an IHA.
NMFS is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether the issuance of an IHA to SAE for its 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic open-water season may have a significant impact on the human environment. NMFS has released a draft of the EA for public comment along with this proposed IHA.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to SAE for conducting a 3D OBN seismic survey in Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic open-water season, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.
This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
(1) This Authorization is valid from July 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015.
(2) This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with open-water 3D seismic surveys and related activities in the Beaufort Sea. The specific areas where SAE's surveys will be conducted are within the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, as shown in Figure 1-1 of SAE's IHA application.
(3)(a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings, Level A and Level B harassment, are: beluga whales (
(3)(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
(i) 620-in
(ii) Vessel activities related to open-water seismic surveys listed in (i).
(3)(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to the Alaska Regional Administrator (907-586-7221) or his designee in Anchorage
(4) The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at least 48 hours prior to the start of collecting seismic data (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).
(5) Prohibitions
(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 6. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required source vessel protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a)(i), are not onboard in conformance with condition 7(a)(i) of this Authorization.
(6) Mitigation
(a) Establishing Exclusion and Disturbance Zones
(i) Establish and monitor with trained PSOs exclusion zones surrounding the 10 in
(ii) Establish and monitor with trained PSOs preliminary exclusion zones surrounding the 1,240 in
(iii) Establish zones of influence (ZOIs) surrounding the 10 in
(iv) Establish the ZOI surrounding the 1,240 in
(v) Immediately upon completion of data analysis of the field verification measurements required under condition 7(e)(i) below, the new 160-dB, 180-dB, and 190-dB marine mammal ZOI and exclusion zones for the 1,240 in
(b) Vessel Movement Mitigation:
(i) Avoid concentrations or groups of whales by all vessels under the direction of SAE. Operators of support vessels should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum distance possible from such concentrations or groups of whales.
(ii) If any vessel approaches within 1.6 km (1 mi) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
(A) Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 300 yards (900 feet or 274 m) of the whale(s);
(B) Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
(C) Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
(D) Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and
(E) Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
(iii) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, adjust vessel speed accordingly, but not to exceed 5 knots, to avoid the likelihood of injury to whales.
(c) Mitigation Measures for Airgun Operations
(i) Ramp-up:
(A) A ramp up, following a cold start, can be applied if the exclusion zone has been free of marine mammals for a consecutive 30-minute period. The entire exclusion zone must have been visible during these 30 minutes. If the entire exclusion zone is not visible, then ramp up from a cold start cannot begin.
(B) If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within the exclusion zone during the 30-minute watch prior to ramp up, ramp up will be delayed until the marine mammal(s) is sighted outside of the exclusion zone or the animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for cetaceans.
(C) If, for any reason, electrical power to the airgun array has been discontinued for a period of 10 minutes or more, ramp-up procedures shall be implemented. If the PSO watch has been suspended during that time, a 30-minute clearance of the exclusion zone is required prior to commencing ramp-up. Discontinuation of airgun activity for less than 10 minutes does not require a ramp-up.
(D) The seismic operator and PSOs shall maintain records of the times when ramp-ups start and when the airgun arrays reach full power.
(ii) Power-down/Shutdown:
(A) The airgun array shall be immediately powered down whenever a marine mammal is sighted approaching close to or within the applicable exclusion zone of the full array, but is outside the applicable exclusion zone of the single mitigation airgun.
(B) If a marine mammal is already within or is about to enter the exclusion zone when first detected, the airguns shall be powered down immediately.
(C) Following a power-down, firing of the full airgun array shall not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. The animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone if it is visually observed to have left the exclusion zone of the full array, or has not been seen within the zone for 15 minutes for pinnipeds, or 30 minutes for cetaceans.
(D) If a marine mammal is sighted within or about to enter the 190 or 180 dB (rms) applicable exclusion zone of the single mitigation airgun, the airgun array shall be shutdown.
(E) Firing of the full airgun array or the mitigation gun shall not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone of the full array or mitigation gun, respectively. The animal will be considered to have cleared the exclusion zone as described above under ramp up procedures.
(iii) Poor Visibility Conditions:
(A) If during foggy conditions, heavy snow or rain, or darkness, the full 180 dB exclusion zone is not visible, the airguns cannot commence a ramp-up procedure from a full shut-down.
(B) If one or more airguns have been operational before nightfall or before the onset of poor visibility conditions, they can remain operational throughout the night or poor visibility conditions. In this case ramp-up procedures can be initiated, even though the exclusion zone may not be visible, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted by the sounds from the single airgun and have moved away.
(iv) Use of a Small-volume Airgun During Turns and Transits
(A) Throughout the seismic survey, during turning movements and short transits, SAE will employ the use of the smallest-volume airgun (
(B) During turns or brief transits (
(d) Mitigation Measures for Subsistence Activities:
(i) For the purposes of reducing or eliminating conflicts between subsistence whaling activities and SAE's survey program, the holder of this Authorization will participate with other operators in the Communication and Call Centers (Com-Center) Program. Com-Centers will be operated to facilitate communication of information between SAE and subsistence whalers. The Com-Centers will be operated 24 hours/day during the 2015 fall subsistence bowhead whale hunt.
(ii) All vessels shall report to the appropriate Com-Center at least once every six hours, commencing each day with a call at approximately 06:00 hours.
(iii) The appropriate Com-Center shall be notified if there is any significant change in plans. The appropriate Com-Center also shall be called regarding any unsafe or unanticipated ice conditions.
(iv) Upon notification by a Com-Center operator of an at-sea emergency, the holder of this Authorization shall provide such assistance as necessary to prevent the loss of life, if conditions allow the holder of this Authorization to safely do so.
(v) SAE shall monitor the positions of all of its vessels and exercise due care in avoiding any areas where subsistence activity is active.
(vi) Routing barge and transit vessels:
(A) Vessels transiting in the Beaufort Sea east of Bullen Point to the Canadian border shall remain at least 5 miles offshore during transit along the coast, provided ice and sea conditions allow. During transit in the Chukchi Sea, vessels shall remain as far offshore as weather and ice conditions allow, and at all times at least 5 miles offshore.
(B) From August 31 to October 31, vessels in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea shall remain at least 20 miles offshore of the coast of Alaska from Icy Cape in the Chukchi Sea to Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay in the Beaufort Sea, unless ice conditions or an emergency that threatens the safety of the vessel or crew prevents compliance with this requirement. This condition shall not apply to vessels actively engaged in transit to or from a coastal community to conduct crew changes or logistical support operations.
(C) Vessels shall be operated at speeds necessary to ensure no physical contact with whales occurs, and to make any other potential conflicts with bowheads or whalers unlikely. Vessel speeds shall be less than 10 knots in the proximity of feeding whales or whale aggregations.
(D) If any vessel inadvertently approaches within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of observed bowhead whales, except when providing emergency assistance to whalers or in other emergency situations, the vessel operator will take reasonable precautions to avoid potential interaction with the bowhead whales by taking one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
• Reducing vessel speed to less than 5 knots within 900 feet of the whale(s);
• Steering around the whale(s) if possible;
• Operating the vessel(s) in such a way as to avoid separating members of a group of whales from other members of the group;
• Operating the vessel(s) to avoid causing a whale to make multiple changes in direction; and
• Checking the waters immediately adjacent to the vessel(s) to ensure that no whales will be injured when the propellers are engaged.
(vii) Limitation on seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea
(A) Kaktovik: No seismic survey from the Canadian Border to the Canning River from August 25 to close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. From around August 10 to August 25, based on the actual hunt date, SAE will communicate and collaborate with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) on any planned vessel movement in and around Kaktovik and Cross Island to avoid impacts to whale hunting.
(B) Nuiqsut:
• Pt. Storkerson to Thetis Island: No seismic survey prior to July 25 inside the Barrier Islands. No seismic survey from around August 25 to close of fall bowhead whale hunting outside the Barrier Island in Nuiqsut, based on actual hunt dates.
• Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No seismic survey from around August 25 to the close of bowhead whale subsistence hunting in Nuiqsut, based on actual hunt dates.
(C) Barrow: No seismic survey from Pitt Point on the east side of Smith Bay to a location about half way between Barrow and Peard Bay from September 15 to the close of the fall bowhead whale hunt in Barrow.
(viii) SAE shall complete operations in time to allow such vessels to complete transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude no later than November 15, 2015. Any vessel that encounters weather or ice that will prevent compliance with this date shall coordinate its transit through the Bering Strait to a point south of 59 degrees North latitude with the appropriate Com-Centers. SAE vessels shall, weather and ice permitting, transit east of St. Lawrence Island and no closer than 10 miles from the shore of St. Lawrence Island.
(7) Monitoring:
(a) Vessel-based Visual Monitoring:
(i) Vessel-based visual monitoring for marine mammals shall be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs throughout the period of survey activities.
(ii) PSOs shall be stationed aboard the seismic survey vessels and mitigation vessel through the duration of the surveys.
(iii) A sufficient number of PSOs shall be onboard the survey vessel to meet the following criteria:
(A) 100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey operations in daylight;
(B) maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; and
(C) maximum of 12 hours of watch time per day per PSO.
(iv) The vessel-based marine mammal monitoring shall provide the basis for real-time mitigation measures as described in (6)(c) above.
(v) Results of the vessel-based marine mammal monitoring shall be used to calculate the estimation of the number of “takes” from the marine surveys and equipment recovery and maintenance program.
(b) Protected Species Observers and Training
(i) PSO teams shall consist of Inupiat observers and NMFS-approved field biologists.
(ii) Experienced field crew leaders shall supervise the PSO teams in the field. New PSOs shall be paired with experienced observers to avoid situations where lack of experience impairs the quality of observations.
(iii) Crew leaders and most other biologists serving as observers in 2015 shall be individuals with experience as observers during recent seismic or shallow hazards monitoring projects in Alaska, the Canadian Beaufort, or other offshore areas in recent years.
(iv) Resumes for PSO candidates shall be provided to NMFS for review and acceptance of their qualifications. Inupiat observers shall be experienced in the region and familiar with the marine mammals of the area.
(v) All observers shall complete a NMFS-approved observer training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. The training course shall be completed before the anticipated start of the 2015 open-water season. The training session(s) shall be conducted by qualified marine mammalogists with extensive crew-leader experience during previous vessel-based monitoring programs.
(vi) Training for both Alaska native PSOs and biologist PSOs shall be conducted at the same time in the same room. There shall not be separate training courses for the different PSOs.
(vii) Crew members should not be used as primary PSOs because they have other duties and generally do not have the same level of expertise, experience, or training as PSOs, but they could be stationed on the fantail of the vessel to observe the near field, especially the area around the airgun array, and implement a power-down or shutdown if a marine mammal enters the safety zone (or exclusion zone).
(viii) If crew members are to be used as PSOs, they shall go through some basic training consistent with the functions they will be asked to perform. The best approach would be for crew members and PSOs to go through the same training together.
(ix) PSOs shall be trained using visual aids (
(x) SAE shall train its PSOs to follow a scanning schedule that consistently distributes scanning effort according to the purpose and need for observations. All PSOs should follow the same schedule to ensure consistency in their scanning efforts.
(xi) PSOs shall be trained in documenting the behaviors of marine mammals. PSOs should record the primary behavioral state (
(c) Marine Mammal Observation Protocol
(i) PSOs shall watch for marine mammals from the best available vantage point on the survey vessels, typically the bridge.
(ii) Observations by the PSOs on marine mammal presence and activity shall begin a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the estimated time that the seismic source is to be turned on and/or ramped-up. Monitoring shall continue during the airgun operations and last until 30 minutes after airgun array stops firing.
(iii) For comparison purposes, PSOs shall also document marine mammal occurrence, density, and behavior during at least some periods when airguns are not operating
(iv) PSOs shall scan systematically with the unaided eye and 7 × 50 reticle binoculars, supplemented with 20 × 60 image-stabilized binoculars or 25 × 150 binoculars, and night-vision equipment when needed.
(v) Personnel on the bridge shall assist the marine mammal observer(s) in watching for marine mammals.
(vi) PSOs aboard the marine survey vessel shall give particular attention to the areas within the marine mammal exclusion zones around the source vessel, as noted in (6)(a)(i) and (ii). They shall avoid the tendency to spend too much time evaluating animal behavior or entering data on forms, both of which detract from their primary purpose of monitoring the exclusion zone.
(vii) Monitoring shall consist of recording of the following information:
(A) The species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), the general behavioral activity, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, behavioral pace, and apparent reaction of all marine mammals seen near the seismic vessel and/or its airgun array (
(B) The time, location, heading, speed, and activity of the vessel (shooting or not), along with sea state, visibility, cloud cover and sun glare at (I) any time a marine mammal is sighted (including pinnipeds hauled out on barrier islands), (II) at the start and end of each watch, and (III) during a watch (whenever there is a change in one or more variable);
(C) The identification of all vessels that are visible within 5 km of the seismic vessel whenever a marine mammal is sighted and the time observed;
(D) Any identifiable marine mammal behavioral response (sighting data should be collected in a manner that will not detract from the PSO's ability to detect marine mammals);
(E) Any adjustments made to operating procedures; and
(F) Visibility during observation periods so that total estimates of take can be corrected accordingly.
(vii) Distances to nearby marine mammals will be estimated with binoculars (7 × 50 binoculars) containing a reticle to measure the vertical angle of the line of sight to the animal relative to the horizon. Observers may use a laser rangefinder to test and improve their abilities for visually estimating distances to objects in the water.
(viii) PSOs shall understand the importance of classifying marine mammals as “unknown” or “unidentified” if they cannot identify the animals to species with confidence. In those cases, they shall note any information that might aid in the identification of the marine mammal sighted. For example, for an unidentified mysticete whale, the observers should record whether the animal had a dorsal fin.
(ix) Additional details about unidentified marine mammal sightings, such as “blow only,” mysticete with (or without) a dorsal fin, “seal splash,” etc., shall be recorded.
(x) When a marine mammal is seen approaching or within the exclusion zone applicable to that species, the marine survey crew shall be notified immediately so that mitigation measures described in (6) can be promptly implemented.
(xi) SAE shall use the best available technology to improve detection capability during periods of fog and other types of inclement weather. Such technology might include night-vision goggles or binoculars as well as other instruments that incorporate infrared technology.
(d) Field Data-Recording and Verification
(i) PSOs aboard the vessels shall maintain a digital log of seismic surveys, noting the date and time of all changes in seismic activity (ramp-up, power-down, changes in the active seismic source, shutdowns, etc.) and any corresponding changes in monitoring radii in a software spreadsheet.
(ii) PSOs shall utilize a standardized format to record all marine mammal observations and mitigation actions (seismic source power-downs, shut-downs, and ramp-ups).
(iii) Information collected during marine mammal observations shall include the following:
(A) Vessel speed, position, and activity
(B) Date, time, and location of each marine mammal sighting
(C) Number of marine mammals observed, and group size, sex, and age categories
(D) Observer's name and contact information
(E) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of observation
(F) Estimated distance of marine mammals at closest approach
(G) Activity at the time of observation, including possible attractants present
(H) Animal behavior
(I) Description of the encounter
(J) Duration of encounter
(K) Mitigation action taken
(iv) Data shall be recorded directly into handheld computers or as a back-up, transferred from hard-copy data sheets into an electronic database.
(v) A system for quality control and verification of data shall be facilitated by the pre-season training, supervision by the lead PSOs, and in-season data checks, and shall be built into the software.
(vi) Computerized data validity checks shall also be conducted, and the data shall be managed in such a way that it is easily summarized during and after the field program and transferred into statistical, graphical, or other programs for further processing.
(e) Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(i) Sound Source Measurements: Using a hydrophone system, the holder of this Authorization is required to conduct sound source verification tests for the 1,240 in
(A) Sound source verification shall consist of distances where broadside and endfire directions at which broadband received levels reach 190, 180, 170, 160, and 120 dB (rms) re 1 μPa for the airgun array(s).
(B) The test results shall be reported to NMFS within 5 days of completing the test.
(ii) SAE shall conduct passive acoustic monitoring using fixed hydrophone(s) to
(A) Collect information on the occurrence and distribution of marine mammals that may be available to subsistence hunters near villages located on the Beaufort Sea coast and to document their relative abundance, habitat use, and migratory patterns; and
(B) Measure the ambient soundscape throughout the Beaufort Sea coast and to record received levels of sounds from industry and other activities
(g) SAE shall engage in consultation and coordination with other oil and gas companies and with federal, state, and borough agencies to ensure that they have the most up-to-date information and can take advantage of other monitoring efforts.
(8) Data Analysis and Presentation in Reports:
(a) Estimation of potential takes or exposures shall be improved for times with low visibility (such as during fog or darkness) through interpolation or possibly using a probability approach. Those data could be used to interpolate possible takes during periods of restricted visibility.
(b) SAE shall provide a database of the information collected, plus a number of summary analyses and graphics to help NMFS assess the potential impacts of SAE's survey. Specific summaries/analyses/graphics would include:
(i) Sound verification results, including isopleths of sound pressure levels plotted geographically;
(ii) A table or other summary of survey activities (
(iii) A table of sightings by time, location, species, and distance from the survey vessel;
(iv) A geographic depiction of sightings for each species by area and month;
(v) A table and/or graphic summarizing behaviors observed by species;
(vi) A table and/or graphic summarizing observed responses to the survey by species;
(vii) A table of mitigation measures (
(viii) A graphic of sightings by distance for each species and location;
(ix) A table or graphic illustrating sightings during the survey versus sightings when the airguns were silent; and
(x) A summary of times when the survey was interrupted because of interactions with marine mammals.
(c) To help evaluate the effectiveness of PSOs and more effectively estimate take, if appropriate data are available, SAE shall perform analysis of sightability curves (detection functions) for distance-based analyses.
(d) SAE shall collaborate with other industrial operators in the area to integrate and synthesize monitoring results as much as possible (such as submitting “sightings” from their monitoring projects to an online data archive, such as OBIS-SEAMAP) and archive and make the complete databases available upon request.
(9) Reporting:
(a) Sound Source Verification Report: A report on the preliminary results of the sound source verification measurements, including the measured 190, 180, 160, and 120 dB (rms) radii of the 1,240 in
(b) Throughout the survey program, PSOs shall prepare a report each day, or at such other interval as is necessary, summarizing the recent results of the monitoring program. The reports shall summarize the species and numbers of marine mammals sighted. These reports shall be provided to NMFS.
(c) Weekly Reports: SAE will submit weekly reports to NMFS no later than the close of business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when seismic surveys take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals exposed to harassment level noise.
(d) Monthly Reports: SAE will submit monthly reports to NMFS for all months during which seismic surveys take place. The monthly reports will contain and summarize the following information:
(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and associated activities during the seismic survey and marine mammal sightings.
(ii) Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated surveys (number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of:
(A) Pinnipeds that have been exposed to the seismic surveys (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with a discussion of any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and
(B) Cetaceans that have been exposed to the geophysical activity (based on visual observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 µPa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 µPa (rms) with
(e) Seismic Vessel Monitoring Program: A draft report will be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after the end of SAE's 2015 open-water seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea. The report will describe in detail:
(i) Summaries of monitoring effort (
(ii) Summaries that represent an initial level of interpretation of the efficacy, measurements, and observations, rather than raw data, fully processed analyses, or a summary of operations and important observations;
(iii) Summaries of all mitigation measures (
(iv) Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
(v) Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), group sizes, and ice cover;
(vi) Data analysis separated into periods when an airgun array (or a single airgun) is operating and when it is not, to better assess impacts to marine mammals;
(vii) Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect detectability), such as:
(A) Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
(B) Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
(C) Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun activity state;
(D) Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun activity state;
(E) Distribution around the survey vessel versus airgun activity state; and
(F) Estimates of take by harassment;
(viii) Reported results from all hypothesis tests, including estimates of the associated statistical power, when practicable;
(ix) Estimates of uncertainty in all take estimates, with uncertainty expressed by the presentation of confidence limits, a minimum-maximum, posterior probability distribution, or another applicable method, with the exact approach to be selected based on the sampling method and data available;
(x) A clear comparison of authorized takes and the level of actual estimated takes; and
(xi) A complete characterization of the acoustic footprint resulting from various activity states.
(d) The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the final report for this activity under this Authorization if NMFS has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
(10) (a) In the unanticipated event that survey operations clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization, such as an serious injury or mortality (
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(ii) The name and type of vessel involved;
(iii) The vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of the incident;
(v) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(vi) Water depth;
(vii) Environmental conditions (
(viii) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(ix) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(x) The fate of the animal(s); and
(xi) Photographs or video footage of the animal (if equipment is available).
(b) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with SAE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SAE may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(c) In the event that SAE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(d) In the event that SAE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in Condition 3 of this Authorization (
(11) Activities related to the monitoring described in this Authorization do not require a separate scientific research permit issued under section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
(12) The Plan of Cooperation outlining the steps that will be taken to cooperate and communicate with the native communities to ensure the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses, must be implemented.
(13) This Authorization may be modified, suspended, or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there
(14) A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental Take Statement must be in the possession of each seismic vessel operator taking marine mammals under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.
(15) SAE is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS' Biological Opinion.
NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on SAE's request for an MMPA authorization.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
As required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish a mathematical conversion factor for the purpose of translating efficiency ratings for water heaters under the test method currently in effect to the ratings under the amended test method promulgated by DOE in a final rule published on July 11, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “the July 2014 final rule”). Compliance with the amended test procedure is required beginning on the later of: one year after the publication of a final rule that establishes a mathematical conversion factor, or December 31, 2015. This rulemaking document proposes a mathematical conversion factor which may be used to convert the existing efficiency ratings under the current Federal test procedure to efficiency ratings under the test procedure adopted in the July 2014 final rule for water heater basic models manufactured, tested and certified prior to the compliance date of the amended test procedure. The amended test procedure applies to all covered consumer water heaters and the covered commercial water heating equipment with residential applications defined in the July 2014 final rule as a “residential-duty commercial water heater.” In addition, this document proposes amendments to the minimum energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters and residential-duty commercial water heaters to account for the impact of the new metric, but does not alter the stringency of the existing energy conservation standards. While DOE has not planned a public meeting to discuss this proposal, DOE is willing to consider a request to hold a meeting.
All comments submitted must identify the NOPR for the Conversion Factor for Test Procedures for Consumer and Certain Commercial Water Heaters, and provide docket number EERE-2015-BT-TP-0007 and/or RIN 1904-AC91. Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:
Title III Part B
Under EPCA, energy conservation programs generally consist of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) establishing Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products and equipment must use as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products and equipment comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and for making other representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6314) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether such products and equipment comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
EPCA, as codified, contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct further rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(4)(A)-(B)). DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.
On April 16, 2010, DOE published a final rule (hereinafter referred to as the “April 2010 final rule”) that amended the energy conservation standards for all classes of consumer water heaters, except for tabletop and electric instantaneous water heaters, for which the existing energy conservation standards were left in place. 75 FR 20112. The standards adopted by the April 2010 final rule are shown below in Table I.1. These standards will apply to all water heater products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after April 16, 2015, for all classes, except for tabletop and electric instantaneous. For these latter two classes, compliance with these standards has been required since April 15, 1991. 55 FR 42162 (Oct. 17, 1990). Current energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters can be found in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(d).
The initial Federal energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial water heating equipment were added to EPCA as an amendment made by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)) These initial energy conservation standards corresponded to the efficiency levels contained in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1) in effect on October 24, 1992. The statute provided that if the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were amended after October 24, 1992, the Secretary must establish an amended uniform national standard at new minimum levels for each equipment type specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines, through a rulemaking supported by clear and convincing evidence, that national standards more
On December 18, 2012, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210, was signed into law. In relevant part, it amended EPCA to require that DOE publish a final rule establishing a uniform efficiency descriptor and accompanying test methods for covered consumer water heaters and commercial water heating equipment within one year of the enactment of AEMTCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(B)) The final rule must replace the current energy factor, thermal efficiency, and standby loss metrics with a uniform efficiency descriptor. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(C)) The July 2014 final rule fulfilled these requirements. AEMTCA requires that, beginning one year after the date of publication of DOE's final rule establishing the uniform descriptor (
AEMTCA also requires that the uniform efficiency descriptor and accompanying test method apply, to the maximum extent practicable, to all water-heating technologies currently in use and to future water-heating technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(H)) AEMTCA allows DOE to provide an exclusion from the uniform efficiency descriptor for specific categories of otherwise covered water heaters that do not have residential uses, that can be clearly described, and that are effectively rated using the current thermal efficiency and standby loss descriptors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(F))
AEMTCA outlines DOE's various options for establishing a new uniform efficiency descriptor for water heaters. The options that AEMTCA provides to DOE include: (1) A revised version of the energy factor descriptor currently in use; (2) the thermal efficiency and standby loss descriptors currently in use; (3) a revised version of the thermal efficiency and standby loss descriptors; (4) a hybrid of descriptors; or (5) a new approach. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(G)) Lastly, AEMTCA requires that DOE invite stakeholders to participate in the rulemaking process, and that DOE contract with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as necessary, to conduct testing and simulation of alternative descriptors identified for consideration. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(I)-(J))
As noted previously, in the July 2014 final rule, DOE amended its test procedure for consumer and certain commercial water heaters. 79 FR 40542 (July 11, 2014). The July 2014 final rule for consumer and certain commercial water heaters satisfied the AEMTCA requirements to develop a uniform efficiency descriptor to replace the existing energy factor, thermal efficiency and standby loss metrics. The amended test procedure includes
This rulemaking will satisfy the requirements of AEMTCA to develop a mathematical conversion factor for converting the measurement of efficiency for covered water heaters from the test procedures and metrics currently in effect to the new uniform energy descriptor. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(E))
This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to establish a mathematical conversion factor between the current rated values under the existing water heaters test procedures (
The mathematical conversion factor required by AEMTCA is a bridge between the efficiency ratings obtained through testing under the existing test procedures and those obtained under the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure published in the July 2014 final rule. Therefore, the mathematical conversion factor will only apply to products and equipment covered by the existing test procedure, as products and equipment that are not covered by the existing test method would not have ratings to be converted. Certain water heater types are not covered by the mathematical conversion factor, either because they are not covered by the uniform efficiency descriptor established by the July 2014 final rule (
To help develop the mathematical conversion factor, DOE conducted a series of tests on the types of water heaters included within the scope of this rulemaking (
DOE selected 72 water heaters for testing, including: 43 consumer storage units, 22 consumer instantaneous units, and 7 commercial residential-duty storage units. Units were selected to represent the range of rated values available on the market (
DOE then used the conversion factors to derive minimum energy conservation standards based on the UEF, as shown in Table II.1 and Table II.2. The proposed standards based on UEF are neither more nor less stringent than the existing standards for consumer water heaters based on energy factor (as amended by the April 2010 final rule) and for commercial water-heating equipment based on the thermal efficiency and standby loss metrics. The methodology for deriving the proposed UEF standards is discussed in detail in section III.E.3 of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
EPCA requires that a covered water heater be considered to comply with the July 2014 final rule on and after July 13, 2015 (the effective date of the July 2014 final rule) and with any revised labeling requirements established by the Federal Trade Commission to carry out the July 2014 final rule if the covered water heater was manufactured prior to July 13, 2015, and complied with the efficiency standards and labeling requirements in effect prior to July 13, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(5)(K)) Upon the effective date of the final rule establishing the mathematical conversion factor (this rulemaking), compliance with energy conservation standards will be exclusively determined based on the standards as defined in terms of UEF, which will be established by this rulemaking. DOE has tentatively concluded that there will be three possible compliance paths available to manufacturers for basic models of consumer water heaters that were certified before July 13, 2015:
(1) Convert the certified rating for energy factor obtained using the test procedure contained in Appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the CFR along with the applicable sampling provisions in 10 CFR part 429 from energy factor to uniform energy factor using the applicable mathematical conversion factor; or
(2) Conduct testing using the test procedure contained at Appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, effective July 13, 2015, along with the applicable sampling provisions in 10 CFR part 429; or
(3) Where permitted, apply an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) pursuant to 10 CFR 429.70 to determine the represented efficiency of basic models for those categories of consumer water heaters where the “tested basic model” was tested using the test procedure contained at Appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, effective July 13, 2015.
Similarly, DOE has tentatively concluded that there will be three possible compliance paths available to manufacturers for basic models of commercial residential-duty water heaters that were certified before July 13, 2015:
(1) Convert the certified rating for thermal efficiency and standby loss obtained using the test procedure contained in 10 CFR 431.106 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the CFR along with the applicable sampling provisions in part 429 from thermal efficiency and standby loss to uniform energy factor using the applicable mathematical conversion factor; or
(2) Conduct testing using the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106, effective July 13, 2015, along with the applicable sampling provisions in part 429; or
(3) Where permitted, apply an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) pursuant to 10 CFR 429.70 to determine the represented efficiency of basic models for those categories of commercial water heaters where the “tested basic model” was tested using the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.106, effective July 13, 2015.
After July 13, 2015, all new basic models (previously uncertified) must be rated using the new test procedure either by testing or by an AEDM, where allowed. All water heaters subject to the new test procedure adopted by the July 2014 final rule must be rated and certified in terms of UEF. DOE will assess compliance based upon the energy conservation standards expressed in terms of UEF as developed in this rulemaking. One year after the final rule in this rulemaking is published, all water heaters subject to the new UEF test procedure must be
During the rulemaking process to develop the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure, comments were received from stakeholders in reference to the derivation and applicability of the conversion factor. DOE deferred discussion of and response to those comments until such time as they could be addressed in this rulemaking.
In response to the test procedure request for information (RFI
NREL stated that there is not a simple conversion factor that will work across all systems, but suggested an application of the Water Heater Analysis Model (WHAM)
Regarding the derivation of updated energy conservation standards using the new uniform descriptor, AHRI and A.O. Smith commented that DOE should not simply test multiple units to determine an average difference between the current and new ratings and use that value to convert the ratings. (AHRI, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042-0033 at p. 4; A.O. Smith, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042-0034 at p. 3) NEEA commented that considering the limited laboratory capacity to test all water heaters under the revised method of test, DOE should assume that all water heaters that comply with current standards will also comply after the implementation of the new metrics. (NEEA, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042-0037 at p. 6) EEI commented that the conversion factor should not make currently existing standards more stringent and should only be based on point-of-use metrics to be consistent with Federal law. (EEI, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0042-0040 at p. 2)
In response to the test procedure NOPR
DOE has considered these comments fully in the development of this proposed rule. Although discussed in overview here, these comments are discussed in more detail later in this document as applicable to DOE's specific decisions regarding the mathematical conversion factor. In regards to the method of developing the conversion factor, DOE agrees in principle with the HTP comment that the most exact approach would be an empirical analysis using a curve-fitting method and actual test data, because such approach would account for all the changes made in the new test procedure, without having to make assumptions. However, DOE notes that the confidence in this empirical approach is dependent upon sample size and has considered whether the approach can feasibly be tested and implemented within the time constraints set forth by AEMTCA. (The curve-fitting method investigated is discussed in section III.C.3.)
In addition, as suggested by NREL, DOE investigated the use of the WHAM model to predict water heater efficiency under the new test procedure parameters, and used the results in the conversion factor analysis. The methodology for applying WHAM and the results are found in section III.C.2.c. As suggested in the NOPR joint comment, the sensitivity of the UEF to draw pattern was investigated by including the drawn volume in the conversion factor calculations; this approach is discussed further in section III.C.
In an effort to develop a mathematical conversion factor, DOE commissioned testing of 72 individual water heaters from various easily distinguishable water-heating categories under the updated test procedure. All of the water heaters chosen were found using either the Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) or AHRI water heater databases, where the water heaters included in the databases were further distinguished based on the suggestions made by AHRI and BWC in response to the November 2013 water heaters NOPR (78 FR 66202 (Nov. 4, 2013)). The models selected for testing and the parameters examined are described in more detail in section III.D. These test data were used to investigate all of the potential conversion factor methods described in section III.C.
DOE has also carefully considered the comments regarding the establishment of energy conservation standards using the uniform efficiency descriptor metric (
The purpose of this section is to describe DOE's process for categorizing water heaters and establishing the range of units to be considered in this mathematical conversion factor rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the scope of the conversion factor. This is identified as issue 1 in section V.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
To determine the appropriate scope of coverage for the mathematical conversion factor, DOE first considered the scope of its existing test procedures and energy conservation standards for consumer and commercial water heaters. Water heaters that are not currently subject to the DOE test procedures or standards were not included in the scope of the conversion factor, as they are not required to be tested and rated for efficiency under the DOE test method.
Under the existing regulatory definitions, DOE's current consumer water heater test procedures and energy conservation standards are not applicable to gas or electric water heaters with storage tanks that are at or above 2 gallons (7.6 L) and less than 20 gallons (76 L). In terms of the high end of the capacity range, the current DOE test procedure for consumer water heaters only applies to gas-fired water heaters with storage volumes less than or equal to 100 gallons (380 L), electric resistance and heat pump storage water heaters with storage volumes less than or equal to 120 gallons (450 L), and oil-fired water heaters with storage volumes less than or equal to 50 gallons (190 L). 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, sections 1.12.1, 1.12.2, and 1.12.4.
In the July 2014 final rule, DOE expanded the scope of the water heater test procedure for the uniform efficiency descriptor to include water heaters with storage volumes between 2 and 20 gallons and up to 120 gallons. 79 FR 40542, 40547-48 (July 11, 2014).
DOE's current consumer water heater test procedure and energy conservation standards are not applicable to gas-fired instantaneous water heaters with input capacities at or below 50,000 Btu/h or at or above 200,000 Btu/h. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, section 1.7.2. In addition, the existing test procedure and energy conservation standards are not applicable to gas-fired storage water heaters with input capacities above 75,000 Btu/h, electric storage water heaters with input ratings above 12 kW, and oil-fired storage water heaters with input ratings above 105,000 Btu/h, as models exceeding those limits would not be classified as consumer water heaters under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6291(27)); 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, sections 1.12.1, 1.12.2, and 1.12.4.
In the July 2014 final rule, DOE designed the test procedure so it is applicable to water heaters with any input capacity. Therefore, the lower limit for instantaneous water heaters no longer applies. 79 FR 40542, 40548 (July 11, 2014).
As discussed in the July 2014 final rule, definitions were added for “electric instantaneous water heater,” “gas-fired heat pump water heater,” and “oil-fired instantaneous water heater,” and the July 2014 test procedure is applicable to these types of appliances. 79 FR 40542, 40549 (July 11, 2014).
Although there is no definition for “electric instantaneous water heater” in the current test procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix E, an energy conservation standard exists for this type of water heater. In addition, the current test procedure can be applied to electric instantaneous water heaters, and manufacturers report energy factor ratings for these products. For these reasons, DOE has decided to include electric instantaneous water heaters with rated storage volumes <2 gallons and rated inputs ≤12 kW in the conversion factor analysis.
DOE has tentatively excluded the consumer water heater products listed in Table III.1 from consideration for the mathematical conversion factor due to the lack of an existing Federal test procedure and rating to be converted.
As stated in the July 2014 final rule, DOE excluded from the uniform efficiency descriptor any specific category of water heater that does not have a residential use, can be clearly described, and can be effectively rated using the current thermal efficiency and standby loss descriptors. 79 FR 40542, 40545 (July 11, 2014). DOE determined that certain commercial water heaters met these criteria to be excluded from the uniform efficiency descriptor, and distinguished them from water heaters that do not meet the criteria by establishing equipment classes for residential-duty commercial water heaters. Commercial water heaters meeting the definition of “residential-duty commercial water heater” do not meet the criteria for exclusion, and thus, are included in the uniform efficiency descriptor while all other commercial water heaters are not. DOE determined that three criteria would be used to distinguish residential-duty commercial water heaters from other commercial water heaters (79 FR 40542, 40547 (July 11, 2014)):
(1) For models requiring electricity, uses single-phase external power supply;
(2) Is not designed to provide outlet hot water at temperatures greater than 180 °F; and
(3) Is not excluded by the limitations regarding rated input and storage volume presented in Table III.2.
DOE did not include commercial water-heating equipment that does not meet the definition of a “residential-duty commercial water heater” in its consideration of the mathematical conversion factor, as the equipment is not subject to the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure. Additionally, DOE notes that there are no electric storage water heaters that would be considered to be residential-duty commercial since the qualifications shown in Table II.2 would place an electric storage water heater in the consumer category. Since there are no such units, and could not be such units under the applicable definition, a conversion is unnecessary. DOE is, therefore, not proposing a conversion factor for residential-duty electric storage water heaters. DOE also notes that a water heater that meets the definition of a consumer electric storage water heater must be tested and rated as a consumer electric storage water heater even if it is marketed as part of a commercial product line.
As stated in the July 2014 final rule, DOE has determined that certain commercial equipment including unfired storage tanks, add-on heat pump water heaters, and hot water supply boilers are not appropriately rated using the uniform descriptor applicable to other water heaters, and, thus, will continue to be rated using the existing metrics. 79 FR 40542, 40547.
Electric instantaneous water heaters are currently subject to the commercial water heating equipment test procedures but do not have an associated energy conservation standard. 10 CFR 431.106; 10 CFR 431.110. Because there is no commercial energy conservation standard for electric instantaneous water heaters, a conversion to the UEF cannot be made.
As stated in section II, DOE undertook an investigation into the water-heating units on the market at the time of the publication of the final rule establishing the UEF test procedure. The AHRI commercial water heater database along with the CCMS consumer water heater database were examined to select representative units for testing and analysis.
DOE's analysis focused on the models that meet the energy conservation standards contained in the April 2010 final rule, which will require compliance on April 16, 2015. The storage volume divisions at 55 gallons in the gas-fired and electric storage product classes, as established in the April 16, 2010 final rule, represent a divide in technology. For gas-fired storage units above 55 gallons manufactured on and after April 16, 2015, the energy conservation standard will be high enough that current designs can only achieve the required efficiency through the use of condensing technology.
In reviewing the commercial water heating market, DOE found that commercial oil-fired instantaneous water heaters are available on the market but do not meet the definition of “residential-duty commercial water heater,” as they have storage volumes greater than 2 gallons. DOE found that all commercial gas-fired instantaneous units exceeded the maximum delivery temperature of 180 °F for residential-duty commercial water heaters, and, thus, would be regulated using the existing thermal efficiency and standby loss metrics. DOE also found that commercial electric instantaneous units which meet the definition of “residential-duty commercial water heater” exist, however, as stated in section III.B.1.b, no energy conservation standard exists for these units; therefore a conversion factor was not developed.
Consequently, none of the commercial water heaters identified above could be tested or examined for use in this rulemaking. In addition, a conversion factor for these water heaters is not needed because there are no units in existence with efficiency ratings that can be converted. However, because a manufacturer may want to design and produce products in these equipment classes in the future, DOE must establish energy conservation standards in terms of the UEF metric. Accordingly, DOE used information gained from other product classes to establish these energy conservation standards, as discussed in section III.E.
Both the current test procedure and the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure consist of a delivery capacity test and a 24-hour simulated-use test. The delivery capacity tests for storage and instantaneous water heaters are the first-hour rating and maximum GPM tests, respectively. These tests are largely unchanged from the current to the new test procedure, except for modifications to account for the decrease in delivered water temperature from a nominal value of 135 °F to 125 °F. The results of those tests, however, have implications on the 24-hour simulated-use test under the new test procedure that are absent under the current test procedure.
In the current test procedure, the delivery capacity has no effect on the 24-hour simulated-use test, which consists of six hot water draws, of equivalent volumes, at the start of the test and each of the first five subsequent hours. The water heater is then in standby mode for the remainder of the test. In the July 2014 final rule, however, the delivery capacity determines the draw pattern for the 24-hour simulated-use test. According to the new test procedure, a water heater's delivery capacity can be categorized as either very small, low, medium, or high; these usages are shown below in Table III.3. 79 FR 40542, 40572 (July 11, 2014). These usage categories have an associated draw pattern prescribed to them during the 24-hour simulated-use. Depending on the delivery capacity associated with a water heater, between 9 and 14 hot water draws of various volumes and flow rates are required.
In the existing DOE consumer water heater test procedure, a temperature of 135 °F ± 5 °F is used for the set-point temperature for storage water heaters (measured as the mean tank temperature) and the delivery temperature for instantaneous water heaters. In the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure set forth in the July 2014 final rule, a temperature of 125 °F ± 5 °F is used for the set-point temperature for storage water heaters (measured as the delivery temperature) and the delivery temperature of instantaneous water heaters. 79 FR 40542, 40554 (July 11, 2014).
The current test procedure for rating commercial water heaters consists of a steady-state test to determine thermal efficiency and a test lasting between 24 and 48 hours to measure the standby loss. 77 FR 28996 (May 16, 2012); 10 CFR 431.106. For electric resistance water heaters, the thermal efficiency is assigned a value of 98 percent in lieu of testing. The set-point temperature of the water heater is 140 °F ± 5 °F, and the unit sits in an environment with an ambient temperature of 75 °F ± 10 °F. Water is supplied to the water heater at a temperature of 70 °F ± 2 °F. Instantaneous water heaters are not required to undergo a standby loss test.
Under the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure, commercial water heaters falling under the “residential-duty” category will now be subject to the first-hour rating or maximum GPM test and simulated-use tests specified in the previous section (III.C.1.a), with the same set-point temperature, ambient temperature, and inlet water temperature as is applied to consumer water heaters.
For converting existing ratings to ratings under the uniform efficiency descriptor test method, DOE considered equations based on a water heater's physical characteristics; these approaches will be termed analytical methods. The sections below describe
For flow-activated water heaters, the delivery capacity is determined by the 10-minute maximum GPM rating test. During this test, the water heater runs at maximum firing rate to raise the temperature from its nominal value of 58 °F to the prescribed delivery temperature. This flow rate is determined by the following equation:
Therefore, an analytical conversion from the existing maximum GPM rating (
As discussed in detail in section III.E.2, tests on flow-activated water heaters showed a change in maximum GPM rating under the uniform efficiency descriptor test method that correlated well with the above equation.
For water heaters that have a heat source controlled by means other than sensing flow (
In the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure, the primary change that will affect the first-hour rating is the shift from a nominal delivery temperature of 135 °F to 125 °F and the accompanying adjustment to the draw termination criterion to a decrease in delivered water temperature from 25 °F in the current consumer water heater test method to 15 °F in the uniform efficiency descriptor test method. Because the initial set-point temperature is reduced in the uniform efficiency descriptor as compared to the existing consumer water heater test procedure, less stored thermal energy will be available at the start of the test. However, this effect is countered because the lower set-point temperature allows the water heater to recover quicker (as the water only needs to be heated to a 15 °F temperature rise rather than a 25 °F temperature rise), thereby allowing subsequent draws to start sooner than they would under the current test procedure. Thus, due to these offsetting effects, DOE has observed through testing that sometimes the first-hour rating is increased when tested under the uniform efficiency descriptor, and sometimes the rating is decreased. DOE is not aware of any analytical models that would mathematically represent this behavior, so it has chosen not to pursue such an approach for converting existing first-hour ratings to first-hour ratings under the uniform efficiency descriptor. Rather, as discussed in section III.C.3, DOE chose an approach based on an empirical regression for converting the first-hour ratings.
Likewise, DOE is not aware of any analytical method that will convert rated values of thermal efficiency and standby loss for residential-duty commercial storage water heaters to a first-hour rating. Therefore, DOE chose an approach based on empirical regression for converting existing ratings of residential-duty commercial water heaters to first-hour ratings.
A number of changes to the 24-hour simulated-use test will alter the water heater energy efficiency ratings from the existing water heater test procedures as compared to the ratings obtained under the uniform efficiency descriptor test method. Among the key changes that are expected to alter the efficiency metric for consumer water heaters are: (1) A different volume of water withdrawn per test; (2) a change in the draw pattern (
A simple theoretical model for determining the energy consumption of a storage-type water heater based on key test parameters, termed the Water Heater Analysis Model (WHAM), was
This calculated energy can then be used to estimate the daily efficiency, Eff, under a given daily water demand (
Currently, directories of water heater ratings provide the Eff (
After the equations are solved to determine UA, if one assumes that the UA and η
This formulation entails a number of assumptions. A major assumption is that the average tank temperature is approximately equal to the delivered water temperature. As previously noted, the new procedure does not normalize the average stored water temperature to a prescribed value, so this estimate may not be completely accurate. Some water heaters have demonstrated that average tank temperature is below the typical delivered temperature because of stratification. This effect is believed to be most pronounced with condensing water heaters. Other water heaters show some stratification, but the average water temperature within the tank is typically closer to the delivered water temperature. Another assumption in this formulation is that the recovery efficiency and UA values do not change when the water heater stores water for delivery at 135 °F compared to storing it at 125 °F. While electric resistance water heaters have a prescribed recovery efficiency of 98 percent, other technologies may see changes in the recovery efficiency as the temperature drops. For example, the study by Sparn
For an initial estimate, DOE considered the situation where the UA and recovery efficiency do not change with temperature. The equations above can estimate the effects of two key factors that have changed in the test procedure, namely the volume drawn per day and the delivery temperature. As more water is delivered, the fraction of energy required to make up the standby losses compared to the overall energy required by the water heater is diminished, thereby increasing the fraction of energy going towards hot delivered water and increasing the efficiency. The change in set-point temperature appears to have less of an effect on water heater efficiency, since two competing factors are at play. With a lower stored water temperature, the standby losses are decreased, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the water heater. The lower delivery temperature, however, means that less energy is delivered per gallon, so the energy delivered for a given volume delivered per day is less than that when the water is delivered at 135 °F, thereby decreasing the efficiency of the water heater.
As noted, direct use of this model may not properly account for changes to the recovery efficiency, UA value, or normalization procedure for standby heat loss. Therefore, DOE has chosen a two-step process to convert the existing Energy Factor ratings for consumer storage water heaters to the UEF. First, using the equations and assumptions described above, a prediction of the
To establish a clear method of applying the analytical model, the WHAM-based UEF equation and Table III.4, comprising the coefficients based on draw bin, are presented below. This equation incorporates the equations and assumptions presented above, where η
WHAM is not directly applicable to instantaneous water heaters because it assumes that the water heater loses heat at a constant rate throughout the day when the heating element is not energized. For instantaneous water heaters, this modeling approach is inappropriate since the unit does not store water at an elevated temperature throughout the day, rather heating water as it flows through the unit.
Instantaneous water heaters instead experience a separate type of heat loss to the surroundings that sometimes result in Energy Factors that are below the steady-state thermal efficiency. This loss occurs when heat that is present in the water heater at the end of a draw dissipates to the ambient. If a draw is not initiated shortly after the end of a draw, then most of this heat is lost. If, however, a subsequent draw starts shortly after a previous draw, some of that heat is captured in the hot water that is delivered.
DOE attempted to capture these effects in a modified equation that separately accounts for energy consumption that goes towards supplying heat to the delivered water and energy consumption that goes towards heating up the materials making up the water heater:
DOE attempted this approach by obtaining an estimate of LF from data obtained during testing of 17 gas instantaneous water heaters according to the current simulated-use test. (LF could theoretically be determined for each unit, but some test results showed a recovery efficiency equal to EF, which would mathematically lead to an infinite value of LF). A regression of the energy consumption data during these tests with the quantity multiplying LF in the previous model equation resulted in a value of LF of 0.679 Btu/°F. Using
Alternatively, a set of regressions, based solely on test data, were examined to determine the impact of other factors as discussed in section III.C.3. The best regressions resulted in a mean squared error of 0.032.
As discussed for consumer storage water heaters in section III.C.2.c.i, DOE also considered a two-step process to convert the existing EF ratings to the UEF—first using the equations and assumptions described above to obtain an analytical prediction of UEF, then using a regression analysis to obtain a relationship that will convert from EF to UEF. Based on these results, DOE has chosen to use the analytical model plus a regression approach for converting EFs for consumer instantaneous water heaters to UEF. DOE has tentatively concluded that the assumptions made in the analytical model capture some key operating characteristics of the instantaneous units, and the further step to use measured data captures unforeseen issues. Details on this approach are provided in section III.C.3.
DOE investigated a modified version of WHAM for converting the thermal efficiency and standby loss metrics for residential-duty commercial storage water heaters to UEF. The AHRI certification directory includes the thermal efficiency (E
These equations can be combined to yield the following equation for converting Et and SL to UEF using the coefficient C
As was done with consumer water heaters, DOE decided to account for unforeseen effects observed during testing by combining this analytical prediction with a regression of the predicted values of UEF to the measured UEF.
DOE seeks comments on the use of analytical methods to convert existing metrics to the ones described in the July 2014 test procedure final rule. This is identified as issue 2 in section V.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
An alternative to the analytical approaches described in section III.C.2 is to develop empirical equations from measured metrics under the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure to those obtained using the existing consumer and commercial water heater test procedures. This approach has the benefit of capturing the effects of factors that are not addressed in analytical models. The drawbacks of this approach are that it is susceptible to measurement errors and that it may not be easily extended to water heaters that were not part of the test program.
To derive the conversion factors from an empirical regression, DOE first used a step regression method. The step regression method produces a linear equation which uses a set of observed independent variables, such as storage volume, input rate, delivery capacity, recovery efficiency, energy factor, thermal efficiency, or standby loss, and seeks to mathematically derive an equation using these variables to relate to a set of observed dependent variables, such as new delivery capacity (under the updated test method) and UEF. The step regression method systematically recombines the set of independent variables to produce an equation for each possible set. Each set's equation is compared to the others and the equation with the best fit is chosen. This approach eliminates factors that are not significant in converting existing metrics to the new metrics. DOE also considered simpler regression forms to reduce confusion in converting from old metrics to new metrics and to ensure that the regressions were applicable over the broad range of water heaters available on the market. In these circumstances, DOE examined the deviations between measured values and predicted values from the correction equations. When those deviations were comparable, DOE opted for simplified models that would be expected to capture the major phenomena that would affect the new metrics. The regression tool found in the Analysis ToolPak of Microsoft Excel (2010) was used to calculate the equation for each set of independent variables.
As noted previously, because DOE has tentatively concluded that an empirical regression methodology would be more accurate than the analytical method described in section III.C.2 for determining first-hour rating for storage water heaters, DOE has proposed conversion factors for those metrics and product types based on the use of the empirical regression methodology. DOE seeks comment on the use of the regression method for the conversion factor analysis. This is identified as issue 3 in section V.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
For its analysis of a mathematical conversion factor between the existing efficiency metrics and the uniform efficiency descriptor, DOE tested 43 consumer storage water heaters to both the existing and updated test procedures. Table III.7 and Table III.8
DOE also tested 22 consumer instantaneous water heaters to develop the mathematical conversion for these products. Table III.9 below summarizes the units that have been tested. Table III.10 provides an estimate of the distribution of those units across draw patterns by using their maximum GPM ratings under the current test (although it is acknowledged that the applied draw pattern for a particular water heater could change under the new maximum GPM test).
DOE tested 7 residential-duty commercial storage water heaters to develop the mathematical conversion for this equipment. Table III.11 summarizes the units that have been tested. A table showing the distribution of draw pattern within the residential-duty commercial water heater test list is not available, because commercial water heaters currently do not have first-hour ratings.
As discussed in section III.B.2, DOE did not analyze a mathematical conversion for residential-duty commercial electric storage water heaters or residential-duty commercial instantaneous water heaters.
After conducting testing on all of the selected water heaters according to both the existing test procedures and the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure, DOE examined how particular attributes of water heaters might affect the conversion factors and investigated the approaches discussed in section III.C for obtaining conversion factors. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether or not particular attributes necessitated separate conversion equations. Separate conversions were created for subsets of the tested units based on water heater attributes such as NO
The three levels of NO
Most units that are short or tall have been labeled as such by the manufacturer; however, some units do not have this designation. DOE has found that some units labeled as small are actually taller than units labeled as tall. DOE is interested in how manufacturers determine whether a unit is short or tall. This is identified as issue 4 in section V.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
The four venting configurations currently available in water heaters on the market include atmospheric, direct, power, and power-direct. Atmospheric and power vent units intake air from the area surrounding the water heater, while direct and power-direct vents intake air from outdoors. Atmospheric and direct
As an example of the process that was taken to examine the effect of these factors, Table III.12 shows the cumulative RMS values for the first-hour rating conversions for consumer storage water heaters. The rows in the table indicate how the conversion equations were separated out, and the columns provide the RMS for each class of consumer storage water heaters. For gas water heaters, these values show that the conversion approach that differentiates between condensing or non-condensing technology and between NO
For consumer instantaneous water heaters and residential-duty commercial water heaters, DOE found no dependence on factors such as condensing operation or vent type. Conversion factors for these classes of water heaters are, thus, based simply on fuel type.
DOE used the methods described in section III.C to derive the mathematical conversion factor for the different types of water heaters covered within the scope of this rulemaking (as discussed in section III.B). This section describes the methodology that was applied to develop a conversion factor for each type of water heater.
As stated in section III.D.1, DOE has conducted testing of 43 consumer storage water heaters using both the current and new test procedures. Table III.13 below presents the test data used to derive the consumer storage water heater conversion factors. Table III.14 shows the water heater attributes by unit described in section III.D.1.
For consumer storage water heaters, DOE proposes to use the regression method described in section III.C.3 to develop new first hour ratings. Of the factors considered, DOE found that the existing first hour rating was the best overall predictor of the new first hour rating. These findings were based on the root mean squared errors between predictions and measured values. In some cases, addition of other factors in the regressions (
The next step in the conversion is to determine which draw pattern is to be applied to convert from EF to UEF. After the first-hour rating under the uniform efficiency descriptor is determined through the conversion factor above, the value can be applied to determine the appropriate draw pattern bin (
As stated in section III.D.1, DOE has tested 22 consumer instantaneous water heaters to both the current and new test procedures. Table III.17 presents the test data used to derive the consumer instantaneous water heater conversion factors. It is noted that test results show measured recovery efficiencies above 100 percent and EFs and UEFs above 1 for electric instantaneous units; DOE acknowledges that these results appear to violate theoretical limits and believes that these results are an artifact of measurement uncertainty. Table III.18 shows the water heater attributes by unit described in section III.D.1.
As stated in section III.C.2, DOE developed an analytical model to convert the existing maximum GPM rating for consumer instantaneous water heaters to ratings under the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure. DOE also attempted to develop an analytical method based on the WHAM equation to estimate the change in existing energy factor ratings under the existing consumer water heater test procedure to values under the uniform efficiency descriptor test procedure. Along with this analytical model, step regression and combined analytical model-regression approaches were conducted. The results of the analytical model, step regression, and combined analytical model-regression approaches for the maximum GPM and UEF conversions are presented in Table III.20. For the maximum GPM conversions, the RMS errors for the three approaches are 0.38, 0.35, and 0.38, respectively. For the UEF conversions, the three approaches have RMS errors of 0.024, 0.028, and 0.023, respectively. DOE has tentatively decided to use the analytical model approach to calculate the consumer instantaneous maximum GPM conversion factor owing to the fact that the model predicts the resultant data very closely and that it will broadly apply to those units not tested. DOE has also tentatively decided to use the combined analytical model-regression approach to convert from EF to UEF since the RMS errors are low, and it has tentatively concluded that the use of the model and regression will capture key
As stated in section III.D.2, DOE has tested 7 residential-duty commercial storage water heaters to both the current and new test procedures. Table III.21 below presents the test data used to derive the residential-duty commercial storage water heater conversion factors. Table III.22 shows the water heater attributes by unit described in section III.D.2.
As stated in section III.C.2.b, DOE is not aware of an analytical model to convert the thermal efficiency and standby loss ratings under the current test procedure to first-hour rating values under the new test procedure. Therefore, the step regression method described in section III.C.3 along with the best combination of water heater attributes were used to determine the following first-hour rating conversion factors:
The next step in the conversion is to determine which draw pattern is to be applied to convert to UEF. After the first-hour rating under the uniform efficiency descriptor is determined through the conversion factor above, the value can be applied to determine the appropriate draw pattern bin (
As discussed in section III.B.2, no instantaneous residential-duty commercial water heaters exist on the market. Therefore, a conversion factor is not needed.
After developing the mathematical conversion factors to convert from the existing efficiency ratings to the efficiency ratings under the UEF metric, DOE sought to update its energy conservation standards for covered water heater products so as to be in terms of UEF. DOE investigated several possible methods to determine the appropriate energy conservation standards in terms of UEF.
First, DOE considered the “percent difference” method, which is the method DOE ultimately has proposed for updating the energy conservation standards so as to be based on the UEF metric. The percent difference method was conducted as follows:
1. Apply conversion factor to convert the current efficiency metrics provided in the relevant consumer or commercial database to the calculated UEF value for each water heater on the market.
2. Calculate the current efficiency standard for each water heater in the database, as follows:
a. For consumer water heaters, find the minimum EF.
b. For residential-duty commercial water heaters, find the minimum thermal efficiency.
3. Find the percent difference between the rated efficiency value and the standard for each water heater in the database, as follows:
4. Find the new energy conservation standard for each water heater in the database, as follows:
5. Find a line through their minimum UEF values.
The advantage of using a “percent difference” is that the updated energy conservation standard is a function of the UEF conversion for all water heaters rather than a subset. It also allows for conversions of standards for classes or groupings of water heaters where no minimally compliant models are currently available on the market. The proposed standards in terms of uniform energy factor are shown below by product class and draw pattern.
As stated in section III.A, EEI commented in response to the November 2013 NOPR, that the updated energy conservation standards should be not more stringent than they are currently. The percent difference from the current rated energy factors and energy conservation standards are used to derive the new energy conservation
DOE also investigated a second method of determining the energy conservation standards where only test data from minimally-compliant water heaters would be used to develop a conversion factor using the analytical and regression methods described in section III.C. Then, this set of conversion factors could be applied to the minimum energy conservation standards to determine the appropriate energy conservation standards in terms of the UEF metric. This method would remove from consideration any factors that are present in more-efficient water heaters, so the resulting change in the standard would not be skewed at all by the inclusion of higher-efficiency products in the mathematical conversion. However, the conversion factors developed through such a methodology would potentially not be applicable for converting the efficiency ratings of products above the baseline. Therefore, DOE chose to pursue a methodology that was applicable to all water heaters and perform the conversion of standards based on the “percent difference” method described above.
DOE seeks comment on the most appropriate method for determining the energy conservation standards based on the updated test procedure. This is identified as issue 5 in section V.E, “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.”
Consumer water heaters and residential-duty commercial water heaters manufactured prior to the effective date of the uniform energy factor test procedure final rule (
Allowing manufacturers to submit both EF and UEF data would allow manufacturers to fulfill the statutory requirement to begin using UEF for purposes of compliance with standards but would also allow manufacturers to provide the necessary information to determine costs under the current FTC labeling requirements. This would also allow a transition period for FTC to pursue a rulemaking to determine whether changes are needed to the water heater EnergyGuide label due to changes in the water heater test procedure. DOE expects that the conversion factors proposed in this notice could be used to convert EF to UEF for previously certified basic models or to convert UEF values “backwards” to EF to determine the appropriate costs for labeling of new basic models until FTC has determined whether to make changes to the label. DOE has proposed a methodology for calculating costs based on UEF testing that could be used in future FTC labeling requirements. DOE requests comment on whether DOE should adopt such a provision in the final rule in this rulemaking or postpone adoption until FTC has had an opportunity to evaluate the ENERGY GUIDE label.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule would prescribe a mathematical conversion that would be used to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters and certain commercial water heaters. For consumer water heaters and certain commercial water heaters, the mathematical conversion would establish a bridge between the rated values based on the results under the current test procedures and the uniform efficiency descriptor of the new test procedure. Furthermore, the conversion factor will ensure that no products which currently pass energy conservation standards fail to meet the energy conservation standards after the conversion factor has been applied. DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990.
For the manufacturers of the covered water heater products, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30849 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and at 77 FR 49991, 50008-11 (August 20, 2012) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at
DOE has identified 19 manufacturers of consumer water heaters (including manufacturers of products that fall under the expanded scope) that can be considered small businesses. DOE identified seven manufacturers of “residential-duty” commercial water heaters that can be considered small businesses. Six of the “residential-duty” commercial water heater manufacturers also manufacture consumer water heaters, so the total number of water heater manufacturers impacted by this rule would be 20. DOE's research involved reviewing several industry trade association membership directories (
For the reasons explained below, DOE has concluded that the test procedure amendments contained in this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any manufacturer, including small manufacturers.
For consumer water heaters that were covered under the old test procedure and energy conservation standards, the conversion factor in this proposed rule would convert the rated values based on the current test procedure to equivalent values based on the new uniform descriptor test procedure. Although the energy conservation standards for consumer water heaters will be denominated using the uniform descriptor, the statute provides that all units that are on the market as of July 13, 2015, that meet the April 16, 2015 energy factor standard will be deemed to meet the converted standards.
For certain commercial water heaters, defined under the term “residential-duty commercial water heater,” the conversion factor in this proposed rule would convert the rated values based on the current test procedure to the uniform descriptor which is based on the new test procedure. The energy conservation standards for commercial water heating equipment will be denominated using the uniform descriptor. The statute provides that all units that are on the market as of July 13, 2015, that meet the thermal efficiency and standby losses standards will be deemed to meet the converted standards.
At the date that compliance is required with the new test procedure, all water heating units with residential applications (
Accordingly, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, so DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will provide its certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of water heaters must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for water heaters, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including consumer and commercial water heaters. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 79 FR 25486 (May 5, 2014). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes conversion factors to convert results from existing efficiency and delivery capacity metrics (and related energy conservation standard requirements) for consumer and certain commercial water heaters to the uniform energy descriptor. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action, which would develop a conversion factor to amend the energy conservation standards for consumer and certain commercial water heaters in light of new test procedures is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this rulemaking.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101
This proposed rule to implement conversion factors between the existing water heaters test procedure and the amended test procedure does not incorporate testing methods contained in commercial standards.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. Has DOE identified all of the water heaters requiring a conversion from the old test procedures for consumer and commercial water heaters to the new test procedure for the uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of water heaters?
2. Are the proposed analytical methods appropriate for the conversion factor analysis?
3. Is the proposed regression method appropriate for the conversion factor analysis?
4. How do manufacturers specify whether a water heater is short or tall? Is there any criteria that could be applied to compare short and tall designs across all manufacturers?
5. Is the proposed percentage difference method appropriate for the derivation of energy conservation
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429, 430, and 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(a)
(1) As of July 13, 2015, manufacturers must determine the represented value for each new basic model of water heater by applying an AEDM in accordance with 10 CFR 429.70 or by testing for the uniform energy factor, in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions as follows:
(i) If the represented value is determined through testing, the general requirements of 10 CFR 429.11 are applicable; and
(ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that—
(A) Any represented value of the estimated annual operating cost or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(
Or,
(
And
(B) Any represented value of the uniform energy factor, energy factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(
(
(2) For basic models initially certified before July 13, 2015 (using either the energy factor test procedure contained in Appendix E to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations or the thermal efficiency and standby loss test procedures contained in 10 CFR 431.106 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, in conjunction with applicable sampling provisions), manufacturers must:
(i) Conduct testing for the uniform energy factor, in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions of this paragraph;
(ii) Apply an AEDM in accordance with 10 CFR 429.70; or
(iii) Calculate the uniform energy factor by applying the following mathematical conversion factors to the previously certified value of energy factor as follows. Representations of uniform energy factor based on a calculation using this mathematical conversion factor must be equal to the uniform energy factor value resulting from the application of the appropriate equation below.
(A) The applicable mathematical conversion factors are as follows:
(B) Calculate UEF
(
(
(
(3) Any represented value of the rated storage volume must be equal to the mean of the measured storage volumes of all the units within the sample.
(4) Any represented value of first-hour rating or maximum gallons per minute (GPM) must be equal to the mean of the measured first-hour ratings or measured maximum GPM ratings, respectively, of all the units within the sample.
(b)
(2) Pursuant to 10 CFR 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For storage-type water heater basic models tested for energy factor and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(iii): Energy factor, uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), first-hour rating (gal), and recovery efficiency (percent);
(ii) For storage-type water heater basic models tested for uniform energy factor and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(1) or 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(i) through (ii): Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume in gallons (gal), first-hour rating (gal), and recovery efficiency (percent);
(iii) For instantaneous-type water heater basic models tested for energy factor and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(iii): Energy factor, uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), maximum gallons per minute, and recovery efficiency (percent); and
(iv) For instantaneous-type water heater basic models tested for uniform energy factor and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(1) or 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(i) through (ii): Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), maximum gallons per minute, and recovery efficiency (percent).
(a)
(i) If the represented value is determined through testing, the general requirements of 10 CFR 429.11 are applicable; and
(ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that—
(A) Any represented value of the estimated annual operating cost or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(
Or,
(
and
(B) Any represented value of the uniform energy factor, energy factor, or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(
Or,
(
(2) Any represented value of the rated storage volume must be equal to the mean of the measured storage volumes of all the units within the sample.
(3) Any represented value of first-hour rating or maximum gallons per minute (GPM) must be equal to the mean of the measured first-hour ratings or measured maximum GPM ratings, respectively, of all the units within the sample.
(b)
(2) Pursuant to 10 CFR 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For storage-type water heater basic models: Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume in gallons (gal), first-hour rating (gal), and recovery efficiency (percent);
(ii) For instantaneous-type water heater basic models: Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), maximum gallons per minute, and recovery efficiency (percent); and
(iii) For instantaneous-type water heater basic models: Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), maximum gallons per minute, and recovery efficiency (percent).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) For residential-duty commercial water heaters, determine representations as provided in 10 CFR 429.17(a).
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Residential-duty commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters tested for thermal efficiency and standby loss and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(iii): Thermal efficiency in percent (%), maximum standby loss in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), and the nameplate input rate in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h).
(viii) Residential-duty commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters tested for uniform energy factor and rated pursuant to 10 CFR 429.17(a)(1) or 10 CFR 429.17(a)(2)(i) through (ii): Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), first-hour rating (gal), and recovery efficiency (percent).
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Residential-duty commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters: Uniform energy factor, rated storage volume (gal), first-hour rating (gal), and recovery efficiency (percent).
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(e)
(i) The estimated annual operating cost for water heaters tested in terms of energy factor shall be—
(A) For a gas or oil water heater, the product of the annual energy consumption, determined according to section 6.1.8 or 6.2.5 of appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, times the representative average unit cost of gas or oil, as appropriate, in dollars per Btu as provided by the Secretary. The resulting product shall be rounded off to the nearest dollar per year.
(B) For an electric water heater, the product of the annual energy consumption, determined according to section 6.1.8 or 6.2.5 of appendix E to subpart B to 10 CFR part 430 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, times the representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the Secretary, divided by 3412 Btu per kilowatt-hour. The resulting quotient shall be rounded off to the nearest dollar per year.
(ii) For an individual test, the tested energy factor for a water heater shall be determined by section 6.1.7 or 6.2.4 of appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 of the January 1, 2015 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, rounded off to the nearest 0.01.
(2) For water heaters tested using uniform energy factor:
(i) The estimated annual operating cost shall be:
(A) For a gas or oil water heater, the sum of: The product of the annual gas or oil energy consumption, determined according to section 6.1.10 or 6.2.7 of appendix E of this subpart, times the representative average unit cost of gas or oil, as appropriate, in dollars per Btu as provided by the Secretary; plus the product of the annual electric energy consumption, determined according to section 6.1.9 or 6.2.6 of appendix E of this subpart, times the representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the Secretary. The resulting sum shall be rounded off to the nearest dollar per year.
(B) For an electric water heater, the product of the annual energy consumption, determined according to section 6.1.9 or 6.2.6 of appendix E of this subpart, times the representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars per kilowatt-hour as provided by the Secretary. The resulting product shall be rounded off to the nearest dollar per year.
(ii) For an individual test, the tested uniform energy factor for a water heater shall be determined by section 6.1.7 or 6.2.4 of appendix E of this subpart, rounded to the nearest 0.01.
(d)
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
(b)
Each commercial storage water heater, instantaneous water heater, unfired hot water storage tank and hot water supply boiler
Each residential-duty commercial water heater, as defined in 10 CFR 431.102, must meet the applicable energy conservation standard level as follows:
| 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 |