Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Prisons Bureau
Labor Statistics Bureau
Copyright Royalty Board
Information Security Oversight Office
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
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.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On January 19, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to establish a new test procedure for television sets (TVs). Based on comments received in response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE performed additional testing and proposed amendments to the TV test procedure in its March 12, 2013 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR). Following the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE issues this final rule to establish a new test procedure for TVs and respond to any subsequent comments from the March 2013 SNOPR. This rule resolves issues with the October 1979 TV test procedure, repealed by DOE on October 20, 2009, by allowing for accurate measurement of the energy consumption of modern TVs.
The effective date of this final rule is November 25, 2013.
The incorporation by reference of certain standards in this rulemaking is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of November 25, 2013.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
This final rule incorporates by reference into part 430 the following industry standards:
(1) CEA–770.3–D, Consumer Electronics Association, High Definition TV Analog Component Video Interface, approved February 2008.
CEA standards can be purchased from the Consumer Electronic Association, 1–800–699–9277, 1–734–780–8000, or
(2) HDMI Specification Version 1.0, High-Definition Multimedia Interface Licensing, LLC,
HDMI standards can be purchased from HDMI Licensing, LLC, 1140 East Arques, Suite 100 Sunnyvale, CA 94085, or
(3) IEC Standard 933–5:1992, International Electrotechnical Commission,
(4) IEC Standard 62087:2011, International Electrotechnical Commission,
IEC standards can be purchased from the International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de Varembré, P.O. Box 131, CH–1211 Geneva 20–Switzerland, or
(5) ITU–R BT.470–6, International Telecommunication Union,
ITU standards are freely available from the International Telecommunication Union,
(6) SMPTE 170M–2004,
SMPTE standards can be purchased from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 3 Barker Ave. 5th Floor, White Plains, NY 10601,
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” These include television sets, the subject of today's final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(12))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007) amended EPCA to require DOE to implement a standby and off mode energy consumption measurement, if technically feasible, in test procedures where not previously present. Otherwise, DOE must prescribe a separate standby and off mode energy test procedure, if technically feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A). EISA 2007 also requires any final rule to establish or revise a standard for a covered product, adopted after July 1, 2010, to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single amended or new standard, if feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A). DOE recognizes that the standby and off mode conditions of operation apply to TVs. In response to this requirement, DOE adopts provisions in the test procedures to address standby and off mode as discussed in sections III.J and III.K of this rulemaking.
Today's rule also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.
In May 2008, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) petitioned DOE to repeal its TV test procedure, promulgated on June 29, 1979, as, among other things, it was no longer appropriate for measuring the energy consumption of modern TVs.
On October 20, 2009, DOE repealed the TV test procedure and then began a rulemaking process designed to resolve the issues of the former test procedure. 74 FR 53640. As a first step in the rulemaking process, DOE published a request for information and request for comment document (RFI) on September 3, 2010. 75 FR 54048 (September 2010 RFI). In the September 2010 RFI, DOE
Today's final rule adopts a new test procedure for TVs. This test procedure is designed to resolve the issues which prompted DOE to repeal the previous test procedure. This test procedure adopts tests for active (on mode), standby mode, off mode, and screen luminance measurements. The data obtained through this test procedure includes the power consumption measurements for all available modes of operation, power factor measurements in on mode, screen luminance values, and an annual energy consumption metric based on the power consumption of individual modes of operation. The adopted tests are based on stakeholder comments in response to the September 2010 RFI, January 2012 NOPR, and March 2013 SNOPR as well as DOE testing. Throughout the rulemaking process, DOE performed several rounds of testing to ensure the adopted tests are repeatable and reproducible.
In preparation for the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE participated as an observing member of the CEA working group meetings regarding TV energy consumption (CEA R4 WG13) to gain a better understanding of industry's position on TV test procedures. DOE based many of its proposals from the March 2013 SNOPR on Draft version 3.5 of the CEA–2037–A standard (October 11, 2012), “Determination of Television Average Power Consumption”. CEA, Sharp, and Panasonic commented that DOE should incorporate by reference the draft version 3.5 of CEA–2037–A as the DOE test procedure in an effort to harmonize between DOE, industry, and international test procedures (CEA, No. 72 at p. 2; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 1; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 1). However, as of today, CEA–2037–A is still in draft form and has not yet been finalized. DOE believes it would not be appropriate to reference by incorporation a test method that is still undergoing changes and has not been made publically available. Therefore, while DOE continues to base its test procedure requirements on draft version 3.5 of the CEA–2037–A test method into today's final rule, DOE is not incorporating these sections by reference.
Additionally, CEA, Panasonic, and Sharp also commented that DOE should incorporate requirements from IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 in its test procedure (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–6; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 7; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). DOE agrees with these comments and incorporates many of today's requirements from IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0. DOE believes that these concepts closely align with those proposed in CEA's draft version 3.5 of CEA–2037–A and will ensure compatibility between the DOE test procedure and industry standards. DOE also recognizes the importance of harmonizing with industry and international test procedures, and takes action by incorporating many industry requirements by reference in today's final rule. DOE is aware that industry and international test procedures are in development, and DOE will consider amending this test procedure to further harmonize with these industry test procedures once any ongoing efforts are finalized.
Following the public meeting for the March 2013 SNOPR, California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOU), CEA, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Panasonic, and Sharp commented that many of the definitions in the proposed TV test procedure contained scoping criteria and requirements that are more suitable for the scope of coverage and product configuration sections, specifically in reference to the definition for television sets (CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 2; CEA, No. 72 at p. A–4; NEEA, No. 66 at p. 2; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 2; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2). NEEA commented that while it agreed with this parameter, defining a TV as a product with a diagonal screen size of 15” or larger may have unintended future consequences (NEEA, No. 66 at p. 2). CEA also commented that restricting the screen size of a TV is not appropriate for a definition (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–4). CA IOU suggested that the size requirement be moved to scope of coverage rather than including it in the definition of a TV (CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 2). DOE agrees with these comments and believes that the screen size requirement should be moved from the definition of a television set and included as part of the scope of the rule, in section 1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. This change allows for a more inclusive definition of a television set, because it is no longer limited to having a screen size of 15 inches or greater. DOE believes that updating the definition allows greater flexibility for other regulating bodies and for future use by DOE. While the definition of a television set no longer contains the provision that the screen size is 15 inches or greater, DOE updates the applicability of the test procedure adopted in today's final rule to only those televisions having a screen size of 15 inches or greater.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE also defined a TV as a product that is “designed to be powered primarily by mains power . . .” Following the public meeting for the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE received comment from Panasonic suggesting that “primarily” be replaced with “solely” to exclude battery powered TVs from the scope of this rulemaking (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 2). Sharp commented that the terms `main battery' and `auxiliary battery' should be defined to help clarify the product coverage of this rulemaking (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2). DOE agrees with these comments and has added definitions for `main battery' and `auxiliary battery' to section 2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. A main battery is defined as a battery capable of powering the TV to produce dynamic video without support of mains power and an auxiliary battery is defined as a battery capable of powering a clock or retaining TV settings but incapable of powering the TV to produce dynamic video. DOE clarifies that the proposed definition of a television in the March 2013 SNOPR was designed to exclude TVs capable of being powered by a main battery from the rulemaking but not to exclude TVs with auxiliary batteries. While the definition of a television set no longer contains the provision that it must designed to be powered primarily by mains power, DOE updates the
Sharp also suggested that TVs with non-removable main batteries should not be tested while TVs with removable main batteries should be tested (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2). DOE believes that testing TVs that have main batteries may result in energy consumption values that are not appropriate for these products due to a different usage profile. Main battery-powered TVs are typically designed for portability and are not intended to be used for several hours a day with their batteries removed. Additionally, these products represent a limited cross-section of the TV market. DOE believes including main battery-powered devices would create unnecessary test burden and result in atypical energy consumption measurements for these products. While DOE believes these products still meet the definition of a TV, they follow a different usage profile than products that fall under the scope of this rulemaking.
However, DOE believes TVs that have auxiliary batteries should be included within the scope of coverage of this test procedure. DOE believes that nearly all TVs have at least one auxiliary battery and this clarification does not change the scope of this rulemaking.
In today's final rule, DOE clarifies its position for TVs powered by mains and batteries as part of the scope of coverage rather than the definition of a television set. DOE also clarifies that TVs powered by main batteries shall be excluded from today's rule, while TVs with auxiliary batteries shall be included in the scope for today's rulemaking, located in section 1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
As discussed in section III.B of this rule, DOE has updated the scope of coverage to incorporate elements formerly proposed in the TV definition. As a result, DOE broadened the TV definition, located in 10 CFR 430.2, to mean a product designed to produce dynamic video, contains an internal TV tuner encased within the product housing, and that is capable of receiving dynamic visual content from wired or wireless sources.
The scope of coverage includes a requirement for a minimum screen size as well as an exclusion for TVs powered by a main battery. These limitations in scope are consistent with the limitations previously proposed in the TV definition in the March 2013 SNOPR. Moving these requirements to the scope of coverage allows for a broader definition of a TV that is consistent with industry practice while retaining the more narrow scope of coverage proposed under the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2013 SNOPR.
DOE also notes that the internal TV tuner requirement proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR is still appropriate for the TV definition. 78 FR 15811. In the All-Channel Receiver Act, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has the authority to require that all products marketed as a TV shall include a TV tuner within the product housing. 47 U.S.C. 303(s). A TV tuner is a key defining characteristic between TVs, displays, and digital picture frames, and as discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, the convergence of these products makes distinguishing their features critical for this rulemaking. Thus, DOE believes that a TV tuner is necessary for the definition of a TV. NEEA commented that they support a TV tuner requirement for the definition of a TV (NEEA, No. 66 at p. 2). As part of today's final rule, DOE adopts the updated definition of a television set in 10 CFR 430.2 in response to comments from the March 2013 SNOPR.
In response to the March 2013 SNOPR, Panasonic commented that the definition of on mode should be updated from “providing one or more principle functions” to “providing both picture and sound” (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 7). Although DOE agrees that this language would clarify the intent of a `principle function', DOE does not believe sound should be included as a principle function. DOE does not require that a TV produce sound under the scope of this rulemaking and believes this change may inadvertently exclude TVs that do not have speakers. DOE agrees with the Panasonic's intentions of clarifying the primary functions of a TV and therefore updates this language in the definition of on mode to “producing dynamic video” in section 2.14 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed definitions for video inputs as a way to clearly specify the connection between the TV and the video input device. 78 FR 15812–15813. These definitions were based on industry standards and harmonized with the Set-top Box (STB) Test Procedure NOPR. Docket No. EERE–2–12–BT–TP–0046, 78 FR 5076. Sharp provided comment on the proposed video input definitions, specifically High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), S-video, composite video, and component video. Sharp agrees with the definition for HDMI but recommends that the HDMI connection should be compatible with all HDMI versions (Sharp, No, 68 at p. 6). DOE agrees with this comment and clarifies the definition of HDMI in 10 CFR 430.2 by requiring that the video input must at least meet HDMI Version 1.0, but accepts higher versions as they are backwards compatible. DOE recognizes that next generation versions of this format will be released, but the criteria in version 1.0 meets the minimum requirements to measure the power consumption of this test procedure. Additionally, DOE does not believe that it is necessary to require updated HDMI versions that have been updated with capabilities not tested in this procedure such as 3D and 4k resolution.
In response to the S-video definition, Sharp commented that S-video should be defined according to IEC 60933–5 (Sharp, No, 68 at p. 7). IEC 60933–5 is consistent with DOE's definition in the March 2013 SNOPR, and including this reference can help to clarify this video input connection. DOE agrees with Sharp's comment and updates the definition of S-video in 10 CFR 420.2 to reference IEC 60933–5.
Sharp commented that the composite video definition should use the SMPTE 170 M standard for 60 Hz signals and ITU BT.470–6 standard for 50 Hz signals (Sharp, No, 68 at p. 6). In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the composite video input should use the National Television System Committee (NTSC) format for a 60 Hz signal. Although NTSC is the correct format for a 60 Hz video signal, DOE agrees that using the SMTPE is more appropriate because it is a standard. Additionally, adding a standard for a 50 Hz signal allows this test procedure to be used internationally. Thus, DOE clarifies the SMPTE and ITU standards to be used in the definition of composite video in 10 CFR 430.2.
Sharp commented that they support the definition for component video proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR, and therefore DOE retains its proposal and adopts this definition for component video in 10 CFR 430.2 (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 6).
CEA also provided comment on the video input definitions, and suggested, along with Sharp, that the definition for direct video connection should be removed because it is not used in the test procedure (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–5;
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for home and retail picture settings to create a picture setting structure consistent with the ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Televisions, Version 4.1 (ENERGY STAR v. 4.1). 77 FR 2837. These definitions established a picture setting structure as depicted in Figure 1. In preparation of the January 2012 NOPR, DOE performed testing and discovered a TV that was unable to enter the retail picture setting after selecting the home picture setting. DOE was concerned that that this issue would prevent the luminance test from being performed on certain TVs, and therefore DOE proposed that the retail picture setting luminance measurement shall be performed first, followed by the home picture setting. Additionally, the on mode test would be performed after the luminance test so that the home picture setting would not need to be changed between tests. The proposed testing order was slightly different from other industry test procedures, which tested on mode before luminance. DOE found this difference necessary to ensure that all TVs were capable of entering both the home and retail picture settings for the luminance test.
In response to the January 2012 NOPR picture setting proposals, Sharp commented that the retail picture setting may not be the brightest picture setting as defined in the January 2012 NOPR (Sharp, No. 45 at p. 2). Sharp also commented that the proposed testing order could lead to double testing for manufacturers that test their products with multiple test procedures (Sharp, No. 45 at p. 3). Panasonic suggested that either the brightest selectable picture setting or the retail picture setting should be tested as the picture setting that measures the highest luminance in on mode (Panasonic No. 50 at p. 2). NEEA recommended that the retail picture setting should be defined as the picture setting which produces the highest attainable luminance from a factory defined menu option (NEEA No. 43 at p. 2). Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (MEVSA) commented that `preset picture setting' should be defined to help clarify the retail picture setting definition (MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 5).
Based on these comments, DOE proposed a definition in the March 2013 SNOPR for the brightest selectable preset picture setting as the picture setting which produces the highest luminance during on mode. 78 FR 15813–15815. The luminance of this picture setting was also measured instead of the retail picture setting (see Figure 2). Additionally, DOE clarified that the brightest selectable preset picture setting was only available from within the home menu. Once DOE proposed that the brightest selectable preset picture setting be measured within the home menu, `home picture setting' was no longer an appropriate term for measuring the default screen luminance. DOE therefore replaced the term `home picture setting' with the term `default picture setting' (which maintained the same meaning as had been previously given to `home picture setting') to measure the default screen luminance. DOE also proposed a definition for preset picture setting to help distinguish these picture settings within the home menu. The proposed testing structure no longer tested picture settings in the retail menu, and DOE was able to harmonize the test order with other industry procedures. Thus, the new testing order in the March 2013 SNOPR tested on mode in the default picture setting followed by the luminance test in the default and brightest selectable preset picture setting. NRDC and Sharp commented that they support the definition for brightest selectable preset picture setting (NRDC, No. 64 at p. 4; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). Additionally, Panasonic and Sharp commented that they support the definition for default picture setting (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 3; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3).
Based on DOE's proposal in the March 2013 SNOPR, CA IOU, CEA, and NEEA recommended that DOE broaden its definition of preset picture setting to include picture settings within the retail menu (CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 3; CEA, No. 72 at p. A–7; NEEA, No. 66 at p. 2). Broadening the definition for preset picture setting allows the brightest selectable preset picture setting to be found in either the home or retail menu. Panasonic, Sharp, and CEA also commented that `home mode', `retail mode', and `forced menu' should be defined to help clarify the picture setting structure (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 3; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3; CEA, No. 72 at p. A–8). DOE agrees with these comments and adopts definitions for `home configuration', `retail configuration', and `forced menu' in today's final rule.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, although DOE did not include definitions for `home mode' and `retail mode', these terms were discussed in the preamble as `home menu' and `retail menu'. DOE intentionally avoided using the term `mode' to prevent confusion with the modes of operation. Although this is still a concern, DOE believes that defining similar terms would be beneficial by clearly describing the picture setting structure. DOE therefore adopts the terms “home configuration”, “retail configuration”, and “forced menu” in sections 2.6, 2.16, and 2.5 respectively of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. The picture setting structure adopted in today's final rule can also be seen in Figure 3. When developing this picture setting structure, DOE determined that `configuration' would be more appropriate to describe the function of the `home' and `retail' than the term `menu', since these selections do not present their own sub-menus.
Throughout this rulemaking, DOE has received many comments highlighting the difficulties of defining a single picture setting that exhibits the highest screen luminance value for all TVs. To mitigate this issue, DOE adopts a picture setting structure which defines both the brightest selectable preset picture setting within the home configuration and the default picture setting within the retail configuration. This structure is designed to measure the brightest picture setting of the TV regardless of whether it is in the home or retail configuration. Thus, DOE adopts the definitions for the brightest selectable preset picture setting and the default picture setting in sections 2.3 and 2.4 respectively of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE also notes that the picture setting structure depicted in Figure 3 only applies to TVs that have a forced menu, rather than all TVs. For TVs with a forced menu, the luminance test measures the screen luminance of three defined picture settings. For TVs that do not have a forced menu, the luminance test measures the screen luminance of two defined picture settings, as shown in Figure 4. The adopted luminance test can be found in section 7.4 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the definitions and configuration requirements for additional and special functions be incorporated by reference from IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0. 78 FR 15812. Panasonic and Sharp agreed with these proposals, and therefore DOE adopts definitions for additional and special functions in sections 2.1 and 2.17 respectively of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 3; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2).
DOE clarifies that the definition of “TV combination unit” has been removed as part of today's final rule. This term was not used in the test procedure and is already included under the definition of additional functions as part of section 2.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. CEA also recommended that this definition be removed (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–8).
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed power meter requirements based on section 5.1.5 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0. 77 FR 2838. These requirements specify the type of meter, the measured uncertainty, and resolution of the measurements. DOE's proposal differed from IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 in that it required the sampling rate of at least 1 measurement per second and it required power factor to be measured simultaneous to real power. DOE maintained this proposal in the March 2013 SNOPR, and, in response, CEA commented that it agrees with these requirements (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–9). In today's final rule, DOE adopts these power meter requirements as proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed requirements for luminance and illuminance meters under a single requirement for light measurement devices. 77 FR 2838–2839. These requirements included an accuracy of ± 2% ± 2 digits of resolution, a repeatability of 0.4% ± 2 digits of resolution, and an acceptance angle of 3 degrees or less. In response to this proposal, Sharp commented that it was in support of these tolerance requirements, while MEVSA and NEEA requested that DOE clarify these tolerance requirements (Sharp, No. 45 at p. 3; MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 29; NEEA, No. 43 at p. 2). In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE included an example in the rule language to clarify the accuracy requirement of a light measurement device. Additionally, DOE reevaluated the overall tolerance requirements and determined that a repeatability requirement may not be appropriate for all measurement equipment. Thus, in the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE removed the repeatability requirement. DOE also determined that it could be misinterpreted in the proposed text that the acceptance angle requirement applied to both luminance and illuminance meters, which was not the intent. Thus, DOE clarified that the acceptance angle requirement is only applicable for luminance meters. 78 FR 15815–15816.
In response to the March 2013 SNOPR, Panasonic commented they were in support of the accuracy requirement. (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 3).Sharp also commented during the SNOPR public meeting that including both luminance and illuminance specifications together may be confusing, especially when attempting to make a distinction between the two (Sharp, No. 65 at p. 173). DOE agrees with these comments and separates the light measurement device specification into two individual requirements for luminance and illuminance meters in sections 3.4 and 3.5 respectively of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE also notes that these separate requirements maintain the accuracy requirement proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR.
Additionally, Sharp and CEA commented that the acceptance angle specification for luminance meters should only apply to non-contact meters (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3; CEA, No. 72 at p. A–10). DOE agrees with these comments because a contact luminance meter measures screen luminance while making contact with the screen and eliminates any concern with accepting unwanted light. DOE therefore clarifies that the acceptance angle specification for luminance meters is only applicable
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed the voltage and frequency requirements of 115 V ± 1%, 60 Hz ± 1%, and a total harmonic distortion (THD) of less than 5%. 77 FR 2838. Panasonic recommended that section 5.1.1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 be referenced to include a voltage and frequency tolerance of ± 2% and a THD of less than 5% (Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 2). DOE believed that the tolerance levels set in the January 2012 NOPR were appropriate, but also agreed that incorporating a requirement from an industry test procedure would be beneficial. Therefore, in the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the voltage and frequency specifications be incorporated by reference from section 4.3.1 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0. 78 FR 15815. Although Panasonic recommended incorporating section 5.1.1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0, DOE incorporated IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 to maintain the same requirements as the January 2012 NOPR. DOE also harmonized with IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 because it includes a table which specifies the nominal voltage and frequency by region to allow for international adoption. Additionally, DOE clarified that the THD requirement remains the same as the January 2012 NOPR proposal, at less than 5%.
Based on this proposal in the March 2013 SNOPR, Sharp recommended that DOE use the term “rated voltage and frequency” rather than “nominal voltage and frequency” as this was the intention of IEC in IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). DOE agrees with this recommendation and updates the voltage and frequency requirement to specify the rated values of the region and incorporates section 4.3.1 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 in section 3.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
To further harmonize with international standards, Sharp suggested that distance be measured in metric rather than imperial units, and offered a recommendation of 1.5 ± 0.1 meters (m) for the on mode with ABC enabled test set-up (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 5). DOE agrees with Sharp's comment because using metric units will limit manufacturer burden when testing multiple procedures. DOE also agrees with Sharp's distance recommendation of 1.5 m because it is roughly 4.92 feet (ft) and falls within the proposed tolerance for the previous 5 ft requirement. DOE therefore adopts the use of metric units for all distance requirements in today's final rule.
In response to the January 2012 NOPR, MEVSA recommended that DOE clarify dark room conditions (MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 2). Panasonic also noted that wall reflectivity of a room may play a role in illuminance measurements (Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 4). In response to these comments, DOE performed testing to help provide additional clarification. In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a definition for a dark room that the room illuminance shall not exceed 1.0 lux (lx) measured at the ABC sensor. 78 FR 15813. DOE also proposed that the ABC sensor shall be at least 2 ft from any wall surface.
Based on these requirements, CEA agreed with DOE's proposal to measure the room illuminance at the ABC sensor (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–6). Sharp commented that the requirements for dark room conditions are embedded in the definition for a dark room (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 7). DOE agrees with Sharp's comment and removes the definition for dark room in favor of a requirement for ambient light conditions, located in section 4.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE clarifies that this change is purely stylistic and maintains a requirement of no more than 1.0 lx measured at the ABC sensor and that the ABC sensor shall be no less than 2 ft from any wall surface. DOE also clarifies that `wall surfaces' specified in this requirement do not include the surface on which the TV stand rests upon nor the rear wall which the back of the TV faces. Panasonic supported this proposal (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 3). Additionally, based on comments addressed in section III.E.2, DOE updates the distance requirement in this section from 2 ft to 0.5 m to adhere with metric units.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a requirement to disable the ABC sensor for the luminance measurement. 78 FR 15832. Panasonic and Sharp commented that some TVs do not have the option to disable the ABC sensor from a settings menu, and should be disabled by directing at least 300 lx into the sensor (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 4; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). DOE agrees with these comments and clarifies in section 7.4.1.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 that if the ABC sensor cannot be disabled through a settings menu, at least 300 lx shall be directed into the ABC sensor.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE also proposed that at least 300 lx shall be directed into the ABC sensor during the on mode stabilization test. 78 FR 15817. Unlike the luminance test, DOE believes that the ABC sensor should not be disabled through the TV menu because it would need to be re-enabled in the subsequent on mode test. Sharp commented that saturating the ABC sensor by directing at least 300 lx into it would achieve repeatable results for all TVs, regardless of whether some TVs have the option to disable ABC through a settings menu (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). DOE agrees with Sharp's comment because it promotes a repeatable test set-up and avoids the potential for undesired TV menu selections. DOE therefore adopts an ABC configuration requirement that directs at least 300 lx shall of light into the ABC sensor for the on mode stabilization test in section 7.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a network hierarchy (see Table 1) for the standby-active, low mode test. 78 FR 15824. In response to this proposal, Panasonic and Sharp commented that only Wi-Fi and Ethernet connections are appropriate for network-enabled TVs (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 7). DOE reevaluated these connections and determined that 75-ohm coaxial cable and RJ–11 are commonly used for only hospitality TV networks and are not appropriate for network-enabled TV testing. Based on the comments by Panasonic and Sharp, DOE adopts a network connection hierarchy which includes only Wi-Fi and Ethernet connections (see Table 2) in section 5.10.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
Additionally, DOE clarifies that this network connection hierarchy shall also be used for on mode connections. In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE did not explicitly state that a network shall be connected during on mode, and therefore DOE clarifies this requirement in section 5.10.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Network-enabled TVs shall be connected to a network during on mode according to the network hierarchy in Table 2.
During the public meeting for the January 2012 NOPR, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought to the Department's attention a product that consumed less than 1 W of power in standby-passive mode, but when a quick start function was enabled, it consumed 24 W in standby-passive mode (NRDC, No. 40 at p. 4). The quick start function is designed to significantly decrease the latency between standby mode and on mode by keeping the TV in a heightened power state. DOE responded to this comment in the March 2013 SNOPR by clarifying that quick start is considered to be a special function and therefore would be configured as such. 78 FR 15823–15824. Under the special functions configuration requirement, if quick start was enabled by default it would be tested but if it was disabled by default it would not be tested. In response to the March 2013 SNOPR, Panasonic commented that they support treating quick start as a special function (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6).
During the public meeting for the March 2013 SNOPR, NRDC clarified their previous comments on quick start by elaborating that a specific TV prompted the user to configure the quick start function from a menu, rather than just being embedded in a settings menu (NRDC, No. 64 at p. 3). By requesting a user response, the quick start function is more likely to be enabled by the user than if the TV is shipped with this function disabled. NEEA, Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), and CA IOU also commented that the quick start function should be tested (NEEA, No. 66 at p. 4; ASAP, No. 69 at p. 2; CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 5). Sharp suggested language which would capture the power consumption of such functions but avoid the possibility of gaming menus (Sharp No. 68 at p. 5). DOE believes that the presence of the quick start function in a user prompt changes the way a user will treat this function, making it more likely that it will be enabled. This scenario with the quick start function prompt can be expanded to other special functions, such as an image processing function that increases power consumption during on mode. Although special function setting options have existed in TV menus for some time, DOE believes it is unlikely that a consumer will divert from the default settings unless they are prompted by the TV. As such, DOE agrees with stakeholder comments and adopts a requirement in section 5.5 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 that would configure special functions in the most power consumptive state when a configuration prompt is displayed.
DOE clarifies that the selection of the home or retail configuration within the forced menu is not considered a special functions prompt and shall be configured according to the picture setting configuration criteria in section 5.5 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Additionally, special functions that may be configured within a forced menu should be configured according to today's requirement for special functions, which specifies that the most power consumptive configuration be selected. In this instance, there is no default configuration since the user is prompted to either enable or disable the function from a forced menu, and therefore, additional guidance is required to configure quick start or other special functions that are selected from a forced menu. In cases where it is unknown which configuration uses more power, every possible configuration is required to be tested. For example, in Figure 5, testing would not be required with Eco mode both enabled and disabled because not enabling Eco mode is known to consume more power. Similarly, if it is known that enabling a special function, such as quick start, is more power consumptive, then that function could be enabled without the need to measure the power consumption in each possible menu configuration.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the TV shall be tested with a video input device of a different manufacturer to avoid device communication that can alter the power consumption of the TV. 78 FR 15816–15817. This requirement was based off the discovery that certain TV and Blu-ray disc players of the same manufacturer have the ability to communicate with one another. Communication between devices changed menu settings and resulted in power variations which increased the potential for unrepeatable results. In response to this proposal, CEA and Panasonic commented that they are in support of this requirement (CEA, No. 72 at p. A–10; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 4). DOE believes that requiring different manufacturers for the TV and the video input device will promote a repeatable test procedure, and therefore DOE adopts the March 2013 SNOPR proposal for video input devices in section 3.6 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE received comment from Sharp recommending that DOE include requirements for additional and special functions (Sharp, No. 45 at p. 2). Similarly, DOE received comment from Panasonic and Sharp that the stabilization requirement from section 11.4.2 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 should be used to ensure that the TV reaches a steady power state for the on mode test (Panasonic No. 50 at p. 2; Sharp No. 45 at p. 3). In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed general requirements for on mode testing by incorporating section 11.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0. 78 FR 15832. Although this requirement included specifications for stabilization, additional functions, and special functions, DOE subsequently included individual references for sections 11.4.2 (stabilization), 11.4.5 (additional functions), and 11.4.6 (special functions) in the March 2013 SNOPR to help clarify its position. In response to the March 2013 SNOPR proposals, Sharp commented that a frame rate requirement should be included that is compatible with the region (Sharp No. 68 at p. 6). While reevaluating the on mode requirements, DOE noted that section 11.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 also included a requirement for frame rate that aligned with Sharp's recommendation. Based on comments from the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE concluded that the general on mode requirements incorporated from section 11.4 of section 62087 Ed. 3.0 may have confused stakeholders and should be clarified in today's final rule.
DOE clarifies these requirements by removing the general reference to section 11.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 and only referencing individual subsections. Based on comments received from the January NOPR and March 2013 SNOPR, DOE will continue to reference sections 11.4.2 (stabilization), 11.4.5 (additional functions), and 11.4.6 (special functions) in sections 5.1, 5.4, and 7.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Additionally, DOE agrees with Sharp's comment on video frame rate and incorporates section 11.4.10 (frame rate) by reference in section 5.8 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE did not receive comment on the remaining subsections of section 11.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 and therefore discusses the impact of these subsections on today's final rule.
Section 11.4.1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 specifies ambient temperature for on mode testing. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed these same requirements to align with industry accepted testing conditions. 77 FR 2839. DOE wishes to continue harmonizing with IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 and therefore adopts section 11.4.1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 in section 4.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE clarifies that this reference maintains the same ambient temperature conditions proposed in the January 2012 NOPR and March 2013 SNOPR.
Sections 11.4.3 and 11.4.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 specify configuration requirements for low noise block power supplies and conditional access modules. These functions are not covered as part of this rulemaking and therefore do not need to be configured. DOE therefore does not incorporate by reference these sections as part of today's final rule.
Sections 11.4.7 and 11.4.8 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 specify configuration requirements for the ABC sensor and picture setting requirements. DOE has worked with stakeholders to fine tune its requirements for the ABC sensor and picture setting structure and believes that the adopted requirements ensure repeatable measurements. DOE therefore does not incorporate by reference sections 11.4.7 and 11.4.8 from today's final rule.
Sections 11.4.9 and 11.4.11 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 specify aspect ratio and sound level requirements for on mode testing. DOE agrees that these requirements contribute to a repeatable configuration for video and sound and therefore incorporates these requirements by reference sections 5.7 and 5.9 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
Finally, section 11.4.12 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 specifies the accuracy of input signal levels. This requirement is not appropriate for today's test procedure because only video input devices such as Blu-ray disc
DOE reiterates that section 11.4 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 was originally incorporated by reference in the March 2013 SNOPR for general on mode requirements. To clarify this requirement, DOE removes the general reference and instead incorporates the following individual subsections from 11.4: 11.4.1 (environmental conditions),
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed a stabilization test to ensure that the TV has reached a steady state in order to produce a consistent and repeatable on mode power consumption measurement. This test required that all TVs display the IEC dynamic broadcast-content video signal for a period of 1 hour and compare each consecutive 10-minute segment. The TV must meet the stabilization criteria, incorporated from section 11.4.2 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0, that the final two consecutive 10-minute segments have a percent difference of less than 2%. 77 FR 2843. In response to this proposal, Panasonic suggested that the stabilization time may be reduced if the TV can be shown to stabilize in less than an hour as this is included in the IEC stabilization guidelines (Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 2). This would potentially reduce the stabilization time by up to 40 minutes, requiring that at least two 10-minute segments be compared to ensure a stable power measurement. DOE agreed with this comment, and in the March 2013 SNOPR proposed that the stabilization time could be reduced to only the time required to meet the stabilization criteria. 78 FR 15817. In response to the March 2013 SNOPR proposal, Panasonic and Sharp expressed their support for this update (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 4; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). In section 7.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, DOE adopts its proposal from the March 2013 SNOPR that the stabilization period can be ended once the TV has met the stabilization criteria.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed that on mode be tested with the Blu-ray disc version of the IEC dynamic broadcast-content video signal for a duration of 10 minutes. 77 FR 2839–2840. DOE also specified a video input connection hierarchy which tested HDMI/digital visual interface (DVI), video graphics array (VGA), component video, S-video, and composite video in this order of priority. 77 FR 2838–2839. Panasonic, Sharp, and MEVSA commented that DVI and VGA are computer inputs and inappropriate for testing televisions (Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 2; Sharp, No. 45 at p. 6; MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 3). DOE agreed with these comments and removed DVI and VGA from the connection hierarchy in the March 2013 SNOPR. 78 FR 15816. In response to this proposal, Panasonic and Sharp commented that they are in support of this hierarchy (Panasonic, No. 68 at p. 3; Sharp, No. 67 at p. 4). DOE adopts the proposed video input connection hierarchy of HDMI, component video, S-Video, and composite video in section 5.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Additionally, DOE adopts the use of the Blu-ray disc version of the IEC dynamic broadcast-content video signal for the test content in today's final rule.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE also proposed that the TV be tested using the primary video input terminals as opposed to input terminals with an alternate designation such as “game” or “DVI”. 78 FR 15816. Panasonic and Sharp commented that they are in support of this requirement (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 4; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 3). DOE therefore adopts this requirement for video input terminals in section 5.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE required that power factor shall be measured and recorded for all on mode power measurements. 78 FR 15825. Panasonic recommended that the power factor measurement be based on a single measurement during the luminance test (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 7). DOE believes that a single measurement during the luminance test may result in increased test burden and unrepeatable measurements as the luminance test displays the IEC three vertical bar signal for only a brief period of time and does not require the use of power measurement equipment. Measuring the power factor during on mode results in no additional test time and allows for multiple measurements over the 10 minute test duration to increase accuracy. CA IOU supported the measurement of power factor and recommended that the CEC procedure be used or a method which produces an accurate measurement that is not unduly burdensome (CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 6). The CEC test method specifies that the reported value shall be the average value of measurements taken at an interval once per minute simultaneous to the on mode power measurement. DOE agrees with this method but believes that the sampling rate should be once per second to be consistent with the on mode power measurement. DOE therefore adopts a power factor measurement taken once per second, simultaneous to the on mode power consumption measurement in section 3.3.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed measuring the on mode power consumption with ABC enabled at 10, 50, 100 and 300 lx. 77 FR 2850–2853. CEA, MEVSA, Panasonic, and Sharp all agreed with testing at four illuminance values but had slightly differing opinions on which values should be measured (CEA, No. 47 at p. 5; MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 7; Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 5; Sharp, No. 45 at p. 4). DOE also evaluated research performed by the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP) in “Further Analysis of Background Lighting Levels during Television Viewing”.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a test set-up which required the lamp be positioned 5 ft from the ABC sensor at a perpendicular angle and the TV be positioned no more than 2 ft from any room surface with all 4 corners of the TV equidistant from a vertical reference plan. 78 FR 15822. DOE also required that the illuminance values be obtained by varying the input voltage to the lamp. 78 FR 15821–15822. Panasonic commented that they agree with DOE's proposal that the TV shall be aligned equidistant from a vertical reference plane (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 5). DOE adopts these test set-up requirements in sections 4.5, 7.3.1, and 7.3.4 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the ABC test set-up use an infrared and ultraviolet (IR/UV) blocking filter to ensure that only the visible light spectrum enter the ABC sensor. 78 FR 15822. DOE proposed this requirement after evaluating the light spectrum produced by the ABC test set-up. DOE found that dimming the lamp increases the amount of IR light produced even though illuminance is only determined by the amount of visible light received by the illuminance meter. As a result, a TV that is sensitive to IR light may exhibit increased power consumption because it senses both the visible and IR portions of the light. Alternately, TVs which use ABC sensors that interpret light based on the visible human response are not affected by the increased levels of IR light at low illuminance values.
Based on these findings, DOE proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR that an IR/UV blocking filter be used to eliminate these portions of the light so the ABC sensor only receives light in the visible spectrum. In response to the March 2013 SNOPR, Sharp commented that an IR/UV blocking filter would not produce conditions typical of a real world scenario and that dimmed residential light has components of IR as well (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 4). NEEA commented that sunlight includes components of the UV spectrum and further justification would be needed to filter out this light (NEEA, No. 66 at p. 3). DOE agrees that it is impossible to determine the typical light spectrum that consumers use to watch TV. Since DOE did not perform extensive testing using IR/UV filters, ASAP, Panasonic, NRDC, and CA IOU recommended that further testing be conducted to evaluate the repeatability of such filters (ASAP, No. 69 at p. 1; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 5; NRDC No. 64 at p. 1; CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 4). DOE believes that an IR/UV blocking filter has the potential to make the test procedure more repeatable because small variations in light would have less of an impact on TV power consumption. However, some IR/UV blocking filters may block different wavelengths than others, resulting in more variation. DOE did not perform additional testing to determine the repeatability of various IR/UV blocking filters, because even if testing did produce repeatable results, it would be impossible to determine if the test wavelengths correspond to typical viewing conditions.
Additionally, ams AG commented that while a gradual backlighting response to ambient light is optimal for a TV viewing at various room illuminance levels, some ABC sensors use a crude implementation which results in a poor picture quality (ams AG, No. 70 at p. 5). ams AG commented that the ABC sensor should be accurate at low illuminance levels by rejecting IR and UV light and providing a photometric response near to the eye (ams AG, No. 70 at p. 5). Ultimately, ams AG discouraged the use of IR/UV blocking filters for ABC testing (ams AG, No. 70 at p. 5). DOE agrees with ams AG's comment and believes that removing the IR/UV filter requirement would provide manufacturers the incentive to update their ABC sensor technology. Based on these comments, DOE no longer believes that an IR/UV blocking filter would be appropriate and excludes this requirement in today's final rule.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed two methods for simulating a 3 lx illuminance value at the ABC sensor. The first method varied the light source until 3 lx was measured at the ABC sensor. However, the second method used a neutral density (ND) filter to uniformly block light received by the ABC sensor, resulting in a 3 lx measurement. 78 FR 15823. In the IR and ND filter supporting document,
In response to the March 2013 SNOPR, Panasonic and Sharp expressed support for using the ND filter (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 5). To ensure a repeatable 3 lx power consumption measurement, DOE adopts the ND filter as the only method acceptable for simulating the 3 lx illuminance value. DOE believes this method is more repeatable because it ensures greater accuracy at low illuminance levels. Panasonic also commented that the ND filter should include further specification to increase test repeatability (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6). DOE agrees with Panasonic's comment and clarifies in section 7.3.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 that the ND filter must be a 2 F-stop filter which uniformly filters 75% of the light.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the lamp be a 1000-lumen standard spectrum halogen incandescent parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) 30S. DOE also noted in the March 2013 SNOPR that standard spectrum is any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of modified spectrum as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 78 FR 15821–5822. DOE believes that requiring a standard spectrum lamp is necessary to avoid lamps that contain spectrum modifying qualities such as an IR coating.
Although stakeholders agreed that these lamp requirements were helpful to create a repeatable test set-up, Sharp and Panasonic expressed concerns about the international availability of PAR 30Slamp (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 5; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 4). DOE evaluated the lamp market and reached a similar conclusion that the specified lamp can be difficult to find internationally. In order to maintain a repeatable lamp requirement, DOE updates this specification by using more general language to avoid international naming differences. DOE adopts a standard spectrum halogen incandescent aluminized reflector with a beam angle of 30 ± 10 degrees, a lamp diameter of 95 ± 10 mm, and a center beam candle power (CBCP) of 1500 ± 500 candelas (cd). For additional clarity, DOE adds a note to the lamp requirements that lamps that contain spectrum modifying qualities, such as an IR coating, are not consider to meet a standard spectrum. DOE shifts away from a lumen-based requirement because the CBCP is a better approximation of the light that the ABC sensor receives during illuminance testing. The ABC sensor primarily receives light from the center beam of the lamp to determine illuminance values and therefore this rating is more representative of the lamp's output under these circumstances. The new CBCP requirement corresponds to a slightly lower lumen range, but spot testing indicates that lamps within this range continue to meet the illuminance values needed for ABC testing. DOE therefore adopts these lamp requirements in section 7.3.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the NOPR, DOE evaluated many different test patterns for the luminance test but ultimately proposed the IEC three vertical bar signal. 77 FR 2841–2842. NEEA, PG&E, Panasonic, and Sharp all supported the use of this test pattern and DOE therefore adopts the IEC three vertical bar signal in today's final rule (NEEA, No. 43 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 46 at p. 3; Panasonic, No. 50 at p. 3; Sharp, No. 45 at p. 4).
In today's final rule DOE adopts a new picture setting structure that measures the luminance of up to three picture settings. As discussed in section III.C.4, DOE received comments on both the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2013 SNOPR that when only one high-luminance picture setting is measured between the retail configuration and home configuration, there is a possibility that the picture setting in the alternate configuration is brighter. To resolve this issue, DOE clarifies that luminance shall be measured in the brightest selectable preset picture setting in the home configuration as well as the default picture setting within the retail configuration.
DOE clarifies that certain cases may make measuring all three picture settings impossible, such as when a TV does not have a forced menu prompting the selection of either home configuration or retail configuration. Figure 4 in section III.C.4 indicates that only the brightest selectable preset picture setting and the default picture setting shall be measured in this case. DOE also identifies similar cases, such as when the retail configuration is no longer available after entering the home configuration or when it displays tickers or demos that are incapable of being disabled. Under these circumstances, only the default and brightest selectable preset picture settings would be measured within the home mode.
With this picture setting structure, DOE no longer believes that a luminance ratio should be the output metric but rather that all measured luminance values should be recorded. This aligns with comments provided by NEEA, NRDC, and PG&E in response to the January 2012 NOPR, suggesting that DOE output the absolute luminance values rather than a ratio (NEEA, No. 43 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 40 at p. 6; PG&E, No. 46 at p. 2).
DOE also notes that in the March 2013 SNOPR, the brightest selectable preset picture setting was measured prior to the default picture setting, even though the testing order was updated so that on mode was tested before the luminance test. 78 FR 15817–15818. Because the on mode test is performed in the default picture setting, measuring the luminance in the default picture setting first would minimize unnecessary picture setting changes. Therefore, DOE clarifies, in section 7.4.1.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, that the screen luminance is measured in the default picture setting prior to measuring the screen luminance in the brightest selectable preset picture setting in order to decrease test burden and increase repeatability.
Additionally, measuring screen luminance after on mode on TVs with ABC enabled may lead to stabilization issues. These TVs are tested in on mode at 3 lx immediately prior to the luminance test, at which point the ABC function is disabled. This transition is likely to cause a significant increase in screen luminance. Sharp and Panasonic commented that the TV should undergo a stabilization period following the on mode test to ensure consistent luminance measurements (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 4; Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 4). DOE agrees with this comment and adopts a 10-minute re-stabilization period using the IEC dynamic broadcast-content video signal in section 7.4.1.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
Following the re-stabilization, the IEC three vertical bar signal shall be selected and displayed. Immediately after the signal is displayed on the screen, the luminance shall be measured to avoid the activation of anti-image retention functions. MEVSA commented on this language in the January 2012 NOPR and suggested the DOE should clarify what is meant by “immediately” (MEVSA, No. 44 at p. 6). Sharp also commented that the luminance measurement should be made within 30 seconds of being displayed (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 4). DOE recognizes that this measurement period is slightly vague and clarifies in section 7.4.1 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 that the measurement shall be made within 5 seconds of the IEC three vertical bar signal being displayed. Although Sharp suggests that the image can be displayed for up to 30 seconds, DOE believes waiting such a long time may result in some TVs activating anti-image retention functions which affect the brightness levels, departing from the original intent of measuring the screen brightness during on mode. Measuring the screen luminance with a static image is currently the only way to measure brightness during on mode, and therefore should be measured as soon as possible to avoid the initiation of anti-image retention functions. DOE believes 5 seconds is a reasonable amount of time to make a measurement and avoids the activation of anti-image retention functions. DOE also believes that this timeframe will allow for repeatable measurements without burden to manufacturers and test labs.
In accordance with section 310 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), today's final rule is required to incorporate a test for standby mode if it is technically feasible. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for standby-active, high, standby-active, low, and standby-passive mode based on Table 1 of IEC 62087 3.0 and adopts these definitions in today's final rule. 77 FR 2836–2837.
At the public meeting for the March 2013 SNOPR, it was brought to the Department's attention that discrete modes of operation may be interpreted differently and therefore DOE clarifies the modes of operation for standby mode.
The standby-passive mode test is designed to measure the power consumption of the TV when it is connected to mains power and can only be switched into a different mode of operation by an internal signal or a remote control unit. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed that standby-passive mode be measured using section 5.3.1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 2.0. 77 FR 2857. This requirement is adopted as part of today's final rule in section 7.5.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
DOE clarifies that the standby-passive mode test shall be conducted with the TV disconnected from any external sources, as they may be capable of providing an external signal capable of switching the TV into a different mode of operation. Additionally, this test can be conducted on all TVs regardless of the TV's features and capabilities. As part of today's final rule, DOE adopts this test to measure the power consumption of the TV in standby-passive mode.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a test to measure the power consumption of network-enabled TVs in standby-active, low mode. 78 FR 15824. Sharp commented that this test does not necessarily test standby-active, low mode because the TV must be able to switch to a different mode of operation through an external signal (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 5). Sharp's main concern was that a TV would only meet this
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a test for standby-active, low mode based on section 8.6.5.8 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0, which measures the power consumption of STBs in standby-active, low mode, and is adapted for TVs. 78 FR 15824. This procedure uses a 30-minute stabilization period followed by a 10-minute power measurement. Panasonic and Sharp commented that the specified stabilization period of 30 minutes is unnecessary and suggested that it be reduced to 10 minutes (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 5). Panasonic also commented that the same standby mode test should be used for standby-active, low and standby-passive mode (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6). DOE agrees that a stabilization time of 30 minutes is unnecessary for this testing and adopts the same measurement procedure as standby-passive and off mode in section 7.5.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, which is incorporated by reference from section 5.3.1 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0. DOE clarifies that this test requires a minimum of 5 minutes to stabilize the TV but this period may be extended for products that require additional time.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed testing standby-active high mode by incorporating the CEA Test Procedure for Download Acquisition Mode (DAM) Testing from the Version 4.1 ENERGY STAR Test Procedure for Televisions. 77 FR 2858. After further evaluation, DOE determined that the DAM test procedure does not accurately assess the power consumption of network-enabled TVs because this procedure was designed for hospitality TVs. DOE is not aware of any workloads used to simulate network traffic for network-enabled TVs, let alone one that would be comparable across all manufacturer platforms. Therefore, in the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed to remove the test for standby-active, high mode altogether. Panasonic and Sharp supported the removal of the DAM test for standby-active high mode (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6; Sharp, No. 68 at p. 5). In today's final rule, DOE continues to exclude a test for standby-active, high mode but retains the definition from IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0 to be consistent with industry procedures.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for off mode based on Table 1 of IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0. 77 FR 2836.
During the rulemaking process, DOE has observed TVs that have a manual off switch which, by definition, places the TV in off mode. A test for off mode is technically feasible and therefore must be included in accordance with the requirements of EISA 2007. DOE adopts the definition for off mode in section 2.13 and the test for off mode in section 7.6 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 using the definition and measurement procedure from IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 that were originally proposed in the January 2012 NOPR.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a sampling plan to ensure consistent and repeatable results for all output metrics. 78 FR 15811–15812. The sampling plan requires that at least two products of a basic model be tested to develop a representative rating, which is consistent with other consumer products regulated under EPCA. Sharp recommended that instead of determining the confidence interval of two or more units, one unit should be randomly selected and tested (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2) Sharp also expressed concern that using divisors of 1.05 and 1.10 could result in conservative energy ratings by manufactures (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 2). Panasonic commented that energy representations shall be performed using only one product (Panasonic No. 67 at. p. 2). DOE believes that using one product to determine an output metric may lead to unrepresentative output values. Variation among units within a basic model along with test variation is taken into consideration by the sampling plan, and is the reason that two or more products are used for any represented value. A minimum of two units are needed to establish a confidence level, which increases the accuracy of the represented value. Additionally, the use of 1.05 and 1.10 divisors allows for variation among units and allows manufacturers to accurately represent the efficiency of each basic model without the need for conservative representation values. DOE believes that the proposed sampling plan ensures an accurate and representative value and therefore DOE adopts this sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.25.
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed a multiple metric output but also considered an annual energy consumption (AEC) metric. The proposed metrics included on mode, standby-active, high mode, standby-passive mode, and off mode. 77 FR 2859. In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE updated these outputs to correspond to test changes resulting from the new proposals. The proposed multiple metrics in the March 2013 SNOPR included on mode, standby-active, low mode, standby-passive mode, off mode, and AEC. 78 FR 15825–15826. One of the main differences between the January 2012 NOPR and March 2013 SNOPR proposal was the inclusion of the AEC metric. In response to the AEC as proposed in the March 2013 SNOPR, CA IOU, CEA, NEEA, and NRDC expressed concern that the weighted values for the modes of operation may shift and no longer be representative (CA IOU, No. 71 at p. 6; CEA, No. 72 at p. 7; NEEA, No. 66 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 64 at p. 5). However, Panasonic supported the proposed output metrics (Panasonic, No. 67 at p. 6). DOE believes that TV viewing habits have not significantly changed but will closely monitor these trends to ensure a representative value for the AEC. While it is possible for the duty cycle to change, the proposed weighting will provide a representative AEC for consumers, and a consistently weighted metric over time allows for energy consumption comparisons between past and future TV models. DOE therefore adopts an AEC metric in section 8 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
DOE believes that output values for on mode, standby mode, off mode, and AEC provide a sufficient representation of the TV's power and energy usage and therefore adopts these metrics in today's final rule.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed that the rated power consumption in on, standby, and off modes that are output from Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 shall be determined by first applying the sampling plan and statistical requirements proposed for 10 CFR 429.25. The AEC metric would then be calculated using these rated power consumption values. 78 FR 15811–15812. Because this proposal required the sampling plan to be performed before calculating the rated power consumption values, multiple units would need to be tested to calculate and output the rated power consumption or AEC in Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. In order to ensure that this appendix provides a methodology for testing and calculating the power consumptions and AEC of a single unit and that 10 CFR 429.25 provides a methodology for determining the represented rating of multiple tested units, DOE is altering both the sampling plan in 10 CFR 429.25 and outputs of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 as part of today's final rule. Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 will output the power consumption for each mode of operation and the AEC for a single tested unit. 10 CFR 429.25 would then calculate the represented power values by applying the sampling plan and statistical requirements for multiple tested units. The represented power values would then be used to calculate a represented AEC. DOE is also adopting rounding requirements for all four representated values in part 429. DOE believes that this approach will provide a clearer methodology for testing a single unit and calculating the represented power values and represented AEC of multiple units. Therefore, DOE is adopting these requirements as part of today's final rule.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed an on mode weighting of 5 hours based on DOE's analysis of Neilson data. 78 FR 15825–15826. Sharp expressed support for a 5 hour weighting in on mode (Sharp No. 68 at p. 6). DOE believes that 5 hours is a representative weighting for typical on mode usage and therefore adopts this AEC weighting in section 8.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a weighting structure for standby mode that is dependent on whether the TV is network-enabled. 78 FR 15825–15826. DOE clarifies that although most network-enabled TVs would meet the definition of standby-active, low mode, having a network connection is not necessarily the only condition for this requirement. DOE believes that the definition for standby-active, low mode should be used as the criterion to determine how the TV receives a standby mode weighting. If the TV is capable of entering standby-active, low mode, this test is performed and the TV receives a 19 hour weighting for standby-active, low mode. Sharp commented that it supports a 19 hour weighting for standby mode (Sharp, No. 68 at p. 6).
NRDC expressed concern that a 19 hour standby-active, low mode and 0 hour standby-passive mode would result in unmeasured power for the quick start function (NRDC, No. 64 at p. 4). NRDC also commented that the quick start function is independent of a network connection (NRDC, No. 64 at p. 4). DOE clarifies that the power consumption associated with the quick start function will be included in both the standby-passive and standby-active, low mode metrics when available. As discussed in section III.E.5, this function will be enabled when it is made available through a display prompt regardless of the TV's network connection capabilities. DOE believes that the adopted implementation of quick start will alleviate NRDC's concerns for the standby mode weighting and, based on stakeholder support, DOE adopts a 19 hour standby mode weighting for the AEC in section 8.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
In the March 2013 SNOPR, DOE proposed a test for off mode and a 0 hour weighting for the AEC. 78 FR 15825–15826. Sharp commented that this test should be removed because only a few TVs are equipped with this feature (Sharp, No. 45 at p. 7). To comply with the requirements of EISA 2007, however, DOE is required to include an off mode test when it is technically feasible and so includes this test in today's final rule. Although some TVs may be equipped with a manual off switch which is necessary for off mode, this feature is increasingly less prevalent on new TVs and when it is present on TVs, it is virtually never used. Therefore, DOE adopts a weighting of 0 hours in off mode in section 8.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
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 OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. This rule prescribes a test procedure to be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for TVs. DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR Part 121. The thresholds set forth in these regulations are based on size standards and codes established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
DOE determined that most manufacturers of TVs are large multinational corporations. To develop a list of domestic manufacturers, DOE reviewed the Hoover database
Based on the above, DOE certifies that today's rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and has not prepared an RFA for this rulemaking. DOE transmitted the 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).
There is currently no information collection requirement related to the test procedure for TVs. In the event that DOE proposes an energy conservation standard with which manufacturers must demonstrate compliance, DOE will seek OMB approval of such information collection requirement.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for certain covered consumer products and commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910–1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 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.
As stated above, in the event DOE proposes an energy conservation standard for TVs with which manufacturers must demonstrate compliance, DOE will seek OMB approval of the associated information collection requirement. DOE will seek approval either through a proposed amendment to the information collection requirement approved under OMB control number 1910–1400 or as a separate proposed information collection requirement.
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
In this final rule, DOE adopts a new test procedure for TVs. 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 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the 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 examined this final rule and determined that it 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final 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 regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's final 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,
Today's regulatory action to establish a test procedure for measuring the power consumption of TVs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 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.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections of the IEC standards 60933–5 Ed. 1.0, 62087 Ed. 3.0, and 62301 Ed. 2.0 as well as CEA 770.3–D, SMPTE 170M, ITU BT.470–6, and HDMI Version 1.0. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e. whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
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.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
(a)
(2) For each basic model of television, samples shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that—
(i) Any represented value of power consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
(B) For on mode power consumption, the upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.05, where:
(C) For standby mode power consumption and power consumption measurements in modes other than on mode, the upper 90 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 1.10, where:
(ii) Any represented annual energy consumption of a basic model shall be determined by applying the AEC calculation in section 8.2 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 to the represented values of power consumption as calculated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii)
(A) For power consumption in the on, standby, and off modes, the represented value shall be rounded according to the accuracy requirements specified in section 3.3.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430.
(B) For annual energy consumption, the represented value shall be rounded according to the rounding requirements specified in section 8.3 of Appendix H to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430.
(b) [Reserved]
42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Broadcast and similar services for terrestrial, cable, satellite, and/or broadband transmission of analog and/or digital signals; and/or
(2) Display-specific data connections, such as HDMI, Component video, S-video, Composite video; and/or
(3) Media storage devices such as a USB flash drive, memory card, or a DVD; and/or
(4) Network connections, usually using Internet Protocol, typically carried over Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
The additions read as follows:
(i)
(1) CEA Standard, CEA–770.3–D,
(2) [Reserved]
(m)
(1) HDMI Specification Informational Version 1.0,
(2) [Reserved]
(o)
(1) IEC Standard 933–5:1992, (“IEC 60933–5 Ed. 1.0”),
(2) IEC Standard 62087:2011, (“IEC 62087 Ed. 3.0”),
(p)
(1) ITU–R BT.470–6, Conventional Television Systems, published November 1998; IBR approved for § 430.2.
(2) [Reserved]
(s)
(1) SMPTE 170M–2004, (“SMPTE 170M–2004”),
(2) [Reserved]
(h)
After April 23, 2014, any representations made with respect to the
This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the energy and power consumption of television sets that:
(i) Have a diagonal screen size of at least fifteen inches; and
(ii) Are powered by mains power (including TVs with auxiliary batteries but not TVs with main batteries).
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
2.8.
2.9.
2.10.
2.11.
2.12.
2.13.
2.14.
2.15.
2.16.
2.17.
2.18.
2.19.
2.20.
2.21.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.1. The sampling rate of the watt-hour meter or wattmeter with averaging function shall be one measurement per second or more frequent.
3.3.2. The power measurement instrument shall measure and record the power factor and the real power consumed during all on mode tests at the same sampling rate.
3.3.3. Power measurements of 0.5 W or greater shall be made with an uncertainty of less than or equal to 2 percent (at the 95 percent confidence level). Measurements of power of less than 0.5 W shall be made with an uncertainty of less than or equal to 0.01 W (at the 95 percent confidence level). The power measurement instrument shall have a resolution of:
0.01 W or better for power measurements of 10 W or less;
0.1 W or better for power measurements of greater than 10 W up to 100 W;
1 W or better for power measurements of greater than 100 W.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
The selection of the home or retail configuration within the forced menu is not considered the configuration of a special function, and is therefore exempt from this requirement.
5.6.
5.7.
5.8.
5.9.
5.10.
5.10.1.
5.10.2.
6.1.
6.1.1. Record the accumulated energy (E
6.1.2. Record the average power consumption (P
The resulting average power consumption value for each mode of operation shall be rounded according to the accurary requirements specified in section 3.3.3 of this section.
7. Test Measurements.
7.1.
7.1.1.
7.1.2.
7.1.3.
7.1.3.1.
The 3 lx illuminance value shall be simulated using a 67 mm 2 F-stop neutral density filter. 12 lx is measured at the ABC sensor prior to the application of the neutral density filter.
7.1.3.2.
W
7.1.3.3.
7.1.3.4.
7.1.3.5.
7.2.
7.2.1.
7.2.1.1.
7.2.1.2.
7.2.1.3.
7.2.2.
7.2.3.
7.2.4.
7.2.5.
7.3.
7.3.1.
7.3.2.
7.3.3.
7.4.
7.4.1. The off mode test shall be performed according to section 5.3.1 of IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). Measure and record the average power consumption value over the test duration as P
8.1.
8.2.
If the calculated AEC value is 100 kWh or less, the rated value shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a kWh;
If the calculated AEC value is greater than 100 kWh, the rated value shall be rounded to the nearest kWh.
8.3.
P
H
365 = conversion factor from daily to yearly
1000 = conversion factor from watts to kilowatts
Values for H
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special condition; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with connectivity of the passenger domain computer systems to the airplane critical systems and data networks. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is October 25, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 9, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0774 using any of the following methods:
•
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1298; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication.
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 will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500–E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft
The digital systems architecture for the Embraer EMB–550 series of airplanes is composed of several connected networks. This proposed network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, including:
• Flight-safety related control and navigation systems,
• Airline business and administrative support, and
• Passenger entertainment.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
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 Model EMB–550 airplane 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 § 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 Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: the architecture allows connections to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane. This proposed data network and design integration may result in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type of system architecture or electronic access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR part 25 regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane data buses and servers. The intent of these special conditions are to ensure that security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.
The Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane's integrated network configuration may allow increased connectivity with external network sources and will have more interconnected networks and systems, such as passenger entertainment and information services, than previous Embraer airplane models. This may allow the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities and increase risks potentially resulting in unsafe conditions for the airplane and its occupants.
This potential exploitation of security vulnerabilities may result in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks and servers. Therefore, these special conditions and a means of compliance are being issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane systems and networks and the passenger entertainment domain.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.
2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special condition; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the architecture and connectivity capabilities of the airplanes' computer systems and networks, which may allow access to or by external computer systems and networks. Connectivity to, or access by, external systems and networks may result in security vulnerabilities to the airplanes' systems. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is October 25, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 9, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0773 using any of the following methods:
•
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1298; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication.
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 will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500–E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, ailerons and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The digital systems architecture for the Embraer Model EMB–550 series of airplanes is composed of several connected networks. This proposed network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, providing data connectivity between systems, including:
• Airplane control, communication, display, monitoring and navigation systems,
• Airline business and administrative support systems,
• Passenger entertainment systems, and
• Access by systems external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
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 Model EMB–550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92 574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: digital systems architecture composed of several connected networks. The proposed architecture and network configuration may be used for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of functions, including:
1. Flight-safety related control, communication, display, monitoring, and navigation systems (aircraft control functions);
2. Airline business and administrative support (airline information services);
3. Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment services); and,
4. The capability to allow access to or by systems external to the airplane.
The proposed Model EMB–550 architecture and network configuration may allow increased connectivity to and access by external airplane sources, airline operations, and maintenance systems to the aircraft control functions and airline information services. The aircraft control and airline information functions perform actions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these functions had very limited connectivity with external sources.
The architecture and network configuration may allow the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities resulting in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data, systems, and networks critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of airplane system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane systems, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions and a means of compliance are issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system security protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
November 29, 2013.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special condition; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with sidestick controllers. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is October 25, 2013. We must receive your comments by December 9, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0776 using any of the following methods:
•
Loran Haworth, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1133; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication.
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 will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500–E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, ailerons and rudder, controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The Model EMB–550 airplane will use passive sidestick controllers for pitch and roll control instead of a conventional control column and wheel. The main characteristics of a sidestick controller are:
• Passive inceptor (i.e., the hand grip returns to the null position after in/out movements),
• Artificial tactile feedback,
• Located on the side of the pilot, and
• No mechanical interconnection.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Embraer, S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendment 25–1 through 25–127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB–550 airplane 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 § 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 Model EMB–550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Model EMB–550 airplane has a sidestick controller for pitch and roll control.
Regulatory requirements for conventional wheel and column controllers, such as requirements pertaining to pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable to sidestick controllers. Certain ergonomic considerations such as armrest support, freedom of arm movement, controller displacement, handgrip size and accommodations for a range of pilot sizes are not addressed in the regulations. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the sidestick controllers are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. Pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible so that normal inputs on one control axis do not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other. As a result, a special condition is issued to require that the unique features of the sidesstick controller must be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handing and control characteristics.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB–550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes.
In the absence of specific requirements for sidestick controllers, the following Special Conditions apply:
1. Pilot strength: In lieu of the control force limits shown in § 25.143(d) for pitch and roll and in lieu of the specific pitch force requirements of §§ 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), and 25.175(d), it must be shown that the temporary and maximum prolonged force levels for the sidestick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal.
2. Pilot control authority: The electronic sidestick controller coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided and must not be confusing to the flightcrew.
3. Pilot control: It must be shown by flight tests that the use of sidestick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, AW109SP, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. The emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This AD requires, before further flight, inspecting certain Thomas coupling nuts on the tail rotor drive shaft line for a crack and replacing all the nuts if any nut is cracked. Also this AD requires replacing all affected Thomas coupling nuts within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 30 days, whichever occurs first. This AD was prompted by two incidents of cracking on the nuts that connect the flexible disc coupling (Thomas coupling) with the splined adapter on the tail rotor drive shaft. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these helicopters.
This AD is effective October 25, 2013 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2013–20–51, issued on October 3, 2013, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 24, 2013.
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 Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39–0331–711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at
Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 222–5110; email
On October 3, 2013, we issued Emergency AD 2013–20–51, which requires, before further flight, inspecting certain Thomas coupling nuts on the tail rotor drive shaft line for a crack and replacing all the nuts if any nut is cracked. Also the emergency AD requires replacing all affected Thomas coupling nuts within 10 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This action was prompted by two incidents of cracking on the nuts that connect the flexible disc coupling (Thomas coupling) with the splined adapter on the tail rotor drive shaft.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013–
Agusta has issued the following service information:
• Alert Bollettino Tecnico (ABT) No. 109K–58 for all Model A109K2 helicopters;
• ABT No. 109–136, for all Model A109A, A109A II, and A109C helicopters;
• ABT No. 109EP–130, for Model A109E helicopters up to and including serial number (S/N) 11832, except S/N 11796, from 11808 to 11810, and from 11812 to 11829;
• ABT No. 109L–066 for all Model A109LUH helicopters;
• ABT No. 109S–055, for all Model A109S helicopters;
• ABT No. 109SP–069, for Model AW109SP helicopters up to including S/N 22316, except S/N 22284, 22286, 22307, and 22308; and
• ABT No. 119–061 for Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters up to and including S/N 14811, except S/N 14805 and 14807.
All the ABTs are dated September 20, 2013, and specify a one-time inspection of the Thomas coupling nuts, part number (P/N) MS21042L4. If any nut is cracked, the ABTs specify replacing all nuts with nuts, P/N NAS1805–4.
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 their 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.
This AD requires, before further flight, visually inspecting each Thomas coupling nut, P/N MS2104L4, along the tail rotor drive shaft line for a crack. If any nut is cracked, replacing all the nuts with nuts, P/N NAS1805–4, is required before further flight. Replacing all nuts, P/N MS21042L4, with nuts, P/N NAS1805–4, is required within 10 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first. Finally, this AD prohibits installing a Thomas coupling nut, P/N MS21042L4, on any tail rotor drive shaft line.
This AD differs from the EASA AD in that we include all model helicopters rather than limiting the applicability to specific serial-numbered helicopters, and we do not include Model A109LUH helicopters as they do not have a U.S. type certificate.
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 find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because inspecting for and replacing a cracked nut must be done before further flight, and replacing all nuts is required within 10 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, which is a very short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written 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 will affect 222 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. We estimate 2 work hours to inspect each nut and 16 work hours to replace all nuts at a cost of $1,530 per helicopter and a total fleet cost of $339,600.
According to the manufacturer, the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost to 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 helicopters 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 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 the following Agusta S.p.A. (Type certificate currently held by AgustaWestland S.p.A) (Agusta) helicopters, with a tail rotor drive shaft flexible disc coupling (Thomas coupling) nut, part number (P/N) MS21042L4, certificated in any category:
(i) Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109S, A109K2, AW109SP helicopters; and
(ii) Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a production deficiency in a certain Thomas coupling nut. This condition could result in failure of the Thomas coupling, failure of the tail drive shaft, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective October 25, 2013 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2013–20–51, issued on October 3, 2013, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
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, using a borescope or light source and mirror, inspect each Thomas coupling nut for a crack. If any Thomas coupling nut is cracked, before further flight, replace all the Thomas coupling nuts with nuts, P/N NAS1805–4, torqueing each nut to 5.6–7.9 Nm.
(2) Within 10 hours time-in-service or 30 days, whichever occurs first, replace each Thomas coupling nut, P/N MS21042L4, with a nut, P/N NAS1805–4, torqueing each nut to 5.6–7.9 Nm.
(3) After the effective date of this EAD, do not install a nut, P/N MS21042L4, on any Thomas coupling.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 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.
(1) Agusta Alert Bollettino Tecnico (ABT) No. 109K–58, ABT No. 109–136, ABT No. 109EP–130, ABT No. 109L–066, ABT No. 109S–055, ABT No. 109SP–069, and ABT No. 119–061, all dated September 20, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact: Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39–0331–711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013–0225–E, effective September 21, 2013. You may view the EASA AD at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC): 6400 Tail rotor system.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This final rule is effective October 25, 2013. The effective date for AD 2013–16–10 (78 FR 49660, August 15, 2013) remains September 19, 2013.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7761; fax: 781–238–7170; email:
AD 2013–16–10, Amendment 39–17548 (78 FR 49660, August 15, 2013), currently requires incorporating inspections, based on a calendar time, into the propeller maintenance schedule for Hamilton Standard Division model 6/5500/F and 24PF and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation model 14RF, 14SF, 247F, and 568F series propellers.
As published, the maintenance manual number, P4202, as part of the model/manual number, 247F–1/P4202, in paragraph (g) of the Compliance section is incorrect.
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being published in the
The effective date for AD 2013–16–10 (78 FR 49660, August 15, 2013) remains September 19, 2013.
For Hamilton Standard Division propeller models 6/5500/F and 24PF and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation propeller models 14RF–19, 14RF–37, 14SF–11, 14SF–15, 14SF–23, 14SF–17, 14SF–19, 247F–1, 247F–1E, 247F–3, 568F–1, 568F–5, and 568F–7, that do not have an approved update to the ALS, within one year after the effective date of this AD, perform an MI on the blades and hubs no later than seven years after the DSI. The DSI will begin at initial installation after the most recent MI or initial installation after production. Guidance on the inspections can be found in the applicable Hamilton Standard Division models/manuals 6/5500/F/P5190 and 24PF/61–12–01, and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation models/manuals 14RF–19/P5199, 14RF–37/P5209, 14SF–11/P5196, 14SF–15/P5197, 14SF–23/P5197, 14SF–17/P5198, 14SF–19/P5198, 247F–1/P5202, 247F–1E/P5204, 247F–3/P5205, 568F–1/P5214, 568F–5/P5203, and 568F–7/P5211.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Eurocopter Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. This AD requires certain inspections of each tail rotor pitch horn assembly (pitch horn) for a crack, and if there is a crack, before further flight, replacing the pitch horn with an airworthy pitch horn. This AD is prompted by a report of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn. These actions are intended to detect a crack in the pitch horn to prevent failure of the pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective October 25, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of October 25, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 24, 2013.
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 American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at
Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, 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.
We are adopting a new AD for the specified Eurocopter helicopters. This AD requires visually inspecting each
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013–0133, dated June 28, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for the Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. EASA advises of an ongoing investigation of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn for which a cause has not been determined. The EASA AD requires repetitive visual inspections of each pitch horn for a crack and replacing the pitch horn with a serviceable assembly if a crack is found. EASA states that its AD is an interim action and further action may follow.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, 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.
Eurocopter has issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013 (EASB), with four different numbers. EASB No.05.00.74 is for Models AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, and D; the non-FAA type certificated Model AS350BB; and the non-FAA type certificated military Model AS350L1 helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.49 is for non-FAA type certificated military Models AS550A2, C2, C3, and U2 helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.65 is for Models AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.44 is for non-FAA type certificated military Model AS555AF, AN, SN, UF, and UN helicopters. Eurocopter has been informed of a case of a crack on the yoke of a pitch horn, which may lead to failure of the pitch horn, resulting in loss of the anti-torque function. The EASB specifies a check for cracks on the yokes of the two pitch horns and specifies replacing any cracked pitch horn. The EASB states that it may be necessary to modify the log card of the tail rotor blade assembly due to some of the pitch horn part numbers being recorded incorrectly.
This AD requires:
• Based on the hours time-in-service, within a specified time, visually inspecting each pitch horn for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of the EASB.
• If there is a crack, before further flight, replacing the pitch horn with an airworthy pitch horn.
• Before installing any pitch horn, P/N 350A121368, dye penetrant inspecting it for a crack.
The EASA AD applies to Eurocopter Model AS350BB that does not have an FAA type certificate and therefore is not a part of this AD. The EASA AD does not apply to Eurocopter Model AS350C or the AS350D1, but this AD does because those models have an FAA type certificate and may have the applicable pitch horn installed. This AD requires a dye-penetrant inspection before installing a pitch horn; the EASA AD does not. The EASA AD applies to parts with less than 135 hours TIS, while this AD does not. The EASA AD requires the pitch horn inspection to be repeated every 165 flight hours, and this AD does not.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
We estimate that this AD will affect 938 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour. We estimate .1 work hour to visually inspect a pitch horn for a total of $8.50 per helicopter and $7,973 for the fleet. We estimate 1 work hour to do a dye-penetrant inspection, for a total cost of $85 per helicopter. We estimate 1 work hour to replace a part if necessary, and a cost for required parts of $1,946, for a total cost of $2,031 per helicopter.
Providing an opportunity for public comments before adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adopting this rule because the corrective actions must be accomplished, for helicopters flying with parts with more than 155 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, a short time period based on the average flight-hour utilization rate of these helicopters.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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 Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with tail rotor hub pitch horn (pitch horn) assembly, part number (P/N) 350A121368.01, 350A121368.02, 350A121368.03, or 350A121368.04, with a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368.XX, where XX stands for two digit dash number, installed, certificated in any category. The pitch horn may be marked with either the pitch horn assembly P/N or pitch horn P/N.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn. This condition could result in failure of a pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective October 25, 2013.
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) For parts with 135 to 155 hours time-in-service (TIS), before exceeding 165 hours TIS, or for parts with more than 155 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, visually inspect each pitch horn for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, as appropriate for your model helicopter.
(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the pitch horn with an airworthy pitch horn.
(3) Do not install a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368 (any dash number), on any helicopter unless it has passed a dye penetrant inspection for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of EASB No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, 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) No. AD 2013–0133, dated June 28, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400 Tail Rotor.
(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) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.
(ii) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.65, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74 and No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, are co-published as one document along with Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.49 and No. 05.00.44, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD, American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; 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), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–8F and 747–8 series airplanes. This AD requires a detailed inspection of the power control actuator (PCA) installation to determine if a bushing is installed, a general visual inspection between the horizontal stabilizer rear spar and the elevator front spar and between certain stabilizer stations for defects and damage, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of unusual noise coming from the left inboard elevator during a functional check of the ram air turbine system, and a determination that a bushing was not installed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct non-installation of bushings. If the
This AD is effective November 12, 2013.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 12, 2013.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 9, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6513; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
We received a report of unusual noise coming from the left inboard elevator during a functional check of the ram air turbine system. When investigating the cause of the noise, the operator found too much freeplay in the left inboard elevator, which was traced to a missing bushing in the PCA installation. Another investigation found that the left inboard PCA had been disconnected from this airplane to replace the left elevator, which had been damaged before delivery. When the PCA was reconnected, however, the bushing was not installed. The operator did inspections of the PCA installation and of the PCA attachment lug assembly, and found no other defects or damage. This condition (if the bushing is not present), if not detected and corrected, could result in decreased stiffness of the load path, which will cause wear of adjacent parts and increased freeplay of the elevator surfaces. Freeplay that exceeds acceptable limits could result in divergent flutter for certain maneuvers, which could lead to loss of controllability of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Service Information.”
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee, to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service information described previously include steps that are labeled as “RC” (required for compliance) because these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
As noted in the specified service information, steps labeled as “RC” must be done to comply with the AD. However, steps that are not labeled as “RC” are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as “RC” may be deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from those identified in the service information without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the steps labeled as “RC” can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as “RC” will require approval of an AMOC.
In addition, the phrase “corrective actions” is used in this AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, and indicates that this action is “RC,” this AD requires repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
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 risk analysis indicated that urgent action is required. Any airplane that is missing a bushing in the elevator PCA installation is operating at an unacceptable level of risk. If the bushing
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written 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 8 airplanes 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.
This AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This 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 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 12, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 747–8F and 747–8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of unusual noise coming from the left inboard elevator during a functional check of the ram air turbine system, and a determination that a bushing was not installed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct non-installation of bushings. If the bushings are not present, the stiffness of the load path will be decreased, which will cause wear of adjacent parts and increased freeplay of the elevator surfaces. Freeplay that exceeds acceptable limits could result in divergent flutter for certain maneuvers, which could lead to loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013: Do a detailed inspection of the inboard elevator left and right power control actuator (PCA) installations to determine if a bushing is installed; and do a general visual inspection between the left and right horizontal stabilizer rear spar and the elevator front spar, and between stabilizer
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and indicates that action is “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repairing before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) 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) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: If the service information contains steps that are labeled as “RC” (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as “RC” are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled 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 labeled as “RC” can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as “RC” require approval of an AMOC.
For more information about this AD, contact Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6513; fax: (425) 917–6590; 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 Alert Service Bulletin 747–27A2515, dated August 23, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) 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
(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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009–05–09 for Bell Model 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters. AD 2009–05–09 required reidentifying each affected part-numbered main rotor yoke (yoke) on its data plate, reducing the retirement life of the reidentified yoke, and revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual or the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs) accordingly. This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2009–05–09 with the exception of the P/N marking location. This AD was prompted by fatigue analysis that shows the retirement life should be reduced on certain yokes. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these helicopters.
This AD is effective November 29, 2013.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280–3391; fax (817) 280–6466; or at
Michael Kohner, ASW–170, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–5170, fax (817) 222–5783, email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009–05–09, Amendment 39–15833 (74 FR 11001, March 16, 2009). AD 2009–05–09 applied to Bell Model 412, 412CF, and
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 34958, June 11, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for minor editorial changes in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) to clarify the intent of paragraph (f)(2) and to remove an unnecessary reference. These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 34958, June 11, 2013) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 115 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It will take about 3 work hours to review and revise the records to reflect the new retirement life and reidentify the P/N at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these estimates, the cost will be $255 per helicopter and $29,325 for the U.S. operator fleet. Replacing a yoke will take about 20 work hours and $50,196 for the required parts for a cost of $51,896 per helicopter.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model 412 and 412EP helicopters with a main rotor yoke assembly (yoke), part number (P/N) 412–010–101–123, –127, –129, or –133, installed; and Model 412CF helicopters with a yoke, P/N 412–010–101–127 or –129, installed; certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue cracking of a yoke, failure of the yoke, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 2009–05–09, Amendment 39–15833 (74 FR 11001, March 16, 2009).
This AD becomes effective November 29, 2013.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time, unless it has been accomplished previously.
Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(1) Review the helicopter records to determine all of the helicopter models on which an affected yoke has been installed since its production and the hours TIS of each affected yoke.
(2) If an affected part-numbered yoke has ever been installed on a Model 412CF helicopter or on a Model 412 or 412EP helicopter with a slope landing kit, P/N 412–704–012–101, installed, do the following:
(i) Reidentify the P/N on the side of the yoke by using a vibrating stylus and etching two lines through the last three digits of the existing P/N and etching “137FM” adjacent to where you etched through the last three digits of the original P/N. This converts each affected yoke P/N to a new yoke P/N 412–010–101–137FM. The serial number remains the same.
The “FM” P/N suffix denotes a field-modified part.
(ii) Treat the etched surface with chemical film, and apply primer and paint.
(iii) Record the reidentified P/N on the applicable component history card or equivalent record.
(3) If you cannot determine all the model helicopters on which an affected yoke has been installed since its production or whether it has ever been installed on a Model 412 or 412EP helicopter with a slope landing kit, P/N 412–704–012–101, installed, perform the actions required by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(4) For each reidentified yoke, P/N 412–010–101–137FM, reduce the retirement life
(5) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual or the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by reducing the retirement life from 5,000 hours TIS to 4,500 hours TIS for each reidentified yoke, P/N 412–010–101–137FM.
Special flight permits will not be issued.
(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, ASW–170, Aviation Safety Engineer, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5170, fax (817) 222–5783; email
(2) For operations conducted under 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.
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Alert Service Bulletins No. 412–08–128 and No. 412CF–08–35, both Revision A and both dated April 14, 2009, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280–3391; fax (817) 280–6466; or at
Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code: 6220 Main Rotor Head.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace description by amending the geographic coordinates for Bucholz Army Airfield (AAF), Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI. The Bucholz AAF geographic coordinates information was updated in the Kwajalein Island Class E airspace descriptions in 2011, but was inadvertently overlooked in the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace description. This action ensures the safety of aircraft operating in the Kwajalein Island airspace area. This is an administrative action and does not affect the operating requirements of the airspace.
Effective date 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
In 2010, the FAA published a final rule, technical amendment in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 71 by amending the geographic coordinates for Bucholz AAF in the Kwajalein Island, Marshall Islands, RMI, Class D airspace legal description to reflect current FAA aeronautical database information. The geographic coordinates for Bucholz AAF, are changed from (lat. 08°43′00″ N., long. 167°44′00″ E) to (lat. 08°43′12″ N., long. 167°43′54″ E.) This action more accurately depicts the center of the Kwajalein Island Class D airspace area with no other changes to the dimensions or altitudes of the Class D airspace area. Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace area listed in this action will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p.389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting published instrument procedures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), MN, within Class B airspace. The FAA is taking this action to ensure containment of aircraft being vectored to and conducting dual Simultaneous Instrument Landing System (SILS) approaches to parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R; aircraft being vectored to and conducting approaches to Runway 35; and, aircraft being re-sequenced from approaches to Runway 35 to approaches to Runway 30L. This action supports the FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing terminal and en route airspace areas to enhance safety, improving the flow of air traffic, and reducing the potential for near midair collision in terminal airspace areas.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
On February 14, 2013, the FAA published in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area. This action (depicted on the chart in Figure 1—Modification of the Minneapolis, MN Class B Airspace Area) modifies the lateral and vertical limits of the Class B airspace to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft and enhance safety in the Minneapolis terminal area. The Class B airspace extensions, located northwest and southeast of MSP, are expanded by approximately one nautical mile (NM) further southwest. Several portions of Class B airspace, located west, northwest, and east of MSP, that are adjacent to the Class B airspace extensions are lowered by 1,000 feet to 6,000 feet MSL. There are several changes to the Class B airspace area that is located south-southeast of MSP. Its outer boundary is realigned by one NM from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) Antenna (I–MSP DME) 25 NM arc to the 24 NM arc. It is lowered by 1,000 feet to 6,000 feet MSL and combined with the adjacent Class B airspace area located south of MSP. Additionally, the Class B airspace boundary segment described by the Gopher VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) (GEP) 160° radial is moved to the GEP 158° radial. These modifications provide the minimum additional airspace necessary to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting instrument procedures within Class B airspace.
Except for Areas A through C, which are unchanged by this action, the remaining Minneapolis Class B airspace subareas are reconfigured and realigned by geographic position in relation to the
Finally, this action updates the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport airport reference point (ARP), the Gopher VORTAC, the Flying Cloud VOR/DME, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME antenna geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) to reflect current NAS data is reflected in the Minneapolis Class B airspace area legal description header. All radials listed in the Minneapolis Class B airspace area description in this rule are stated in degrees relative to True North. All geographic coordinates are stated in degrees, minutes, and seconds based on North American Datum 83.
Implementation of these modifications to the Minneapolis Class B airspace area ensure containment of large turbine-powered aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directives to enhance safety and efficient management of aircraft operations in the Minneapolis terminal area.
Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
This action modifies the Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting published instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and reduce the potential for midair collisions. Given the former boundaries and changes in MSP traffic flows and aircraft descent profiles since the last restructuring, instrument flight rules (IFR) flights were not contained within Class B airspace. This amendment restructures the airspace to ensure containment of these aircraft within Class B airspace, which will reduce the potential for midair collisions in the terminal area. The amendment will also reduce controller workload by reducing the number of Class B airspace excursions. The restructuring accommodates aircraft approaches on flight paths that were close to the Class B airspace boundaries, by moving these boundaries slightly. Also, since the last restructuring of the airspace, the fleet mix has changed from more rapidly descending aircraft to turbojets with more “efficient wings” which require a longer time to descend. To better contain these new turbojets, the
The FAA expects that these changes will have little impact on Visual Flight Rules (VFR) traffic as VFR aircraft will have the alternatives of flying under or over the redesigned Class B or through it with clearance from air traffic control. The Ad Hoc Committee which was formed to review the Class B airspace proposal and provide feedback to the FAA reported most of the proposed changes would have little or no impact on the aviation community they represented, including non-participating VFR aircraft, with the exception of the cutout near Stanton Airfield. The committee did however indicate the proposed modifications would impact the Minnesota Soaring Club and Stanton Sport Aviation operations and provided six recommendations to alleviate the potential impact. Additionally, the FAA held several fact finding informal airspace meetings. As a result of the Ad Hoc Committee and informal airspace meeting inputs, the FAA incorporated those recommendations and comments that supported containment of IFR traffic within Class B airspace with an expected minimal impact on non-participatory VFR operations. The FAA anticipates that these modifications will continue to allow sufficient airspace for VFR operations in the vicinity of the Minneapolis Class B airspace area.
In the NPRM, the FAA found that the expected outcome would be a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requested comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact in the NPRM. The FAA received no comments on the minimal cost determination.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This final rule is expected to improve safety by redefining Class B airspace boundaries and will impose only minimal costs. This final rule is expected to cause little impact on VFR traffic. VFR traffic that might have been flying in airspace that will be re-designated as Class B airspace will continue to have the option of flying above or below the proposed Class B airspace or obtaining clearance to fly through. This final amendment will not require updating of materials outside the normal update cycle. Therefore, the expected outcome will be a minimal economic impact on small entities affected by this rulemaking action.
In the NPRM, the FAA certified that the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicited comments regarding this determination. The FAA received no comments regarding this determination.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule, in the NPRM, and determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international trade.
The FAA received no comments on this determination. Therefore, the FAA determines that this final rule will have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international trade.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p.389.
Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 10,000 feet MSL within a 6 NM radius of I–MSP DME.
Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an 8.5 NM radius of I–MSP DME, excluding Area A previously described.
Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within a 12 NM radius of I–MSP DME, excluding Area A and Area B previously described.
Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 121° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124° radial; thence northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124° radial to the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 20 NM are of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295° radial; thence northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial to the point of beginning, excluding Area A, Area B, and Area C previously described.
Area E. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 358° radial; thence north along the Gopher VORTAC 358° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 301° radial to the point of beginning.
Area F. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 091° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 111° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 091° radial; thence west along the Gopher VORTAC 091° radial to the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 111° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 121° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111° radial; thence northwest along the Gopher VORTAC 111° radial to the point of beginning.
Area H. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176° radial; thence south along the Gopher VORTAC 176° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 164° radial; thence north along the Gopher VORTAC 164° radial to the 24 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 24 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124° radial; thence northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124° radial to the point of beginning.
Area I. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 176° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271° radial; thence west along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176° radial; thence north along the Gopher VORTAC 176° radial to the point of beginning.
Area J. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271° radial; thence clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295° radial; thence northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295° radial to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 271° radial; thence east along the Flying Cloud 271° radial to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends Restricted Areas R–6901A and R–6901B, Fort McCoy, WI, to accurately identify the segment of Wisconsin State Highway 21 used to identify the shared boundary between the restricted areas. The geographic coordinates contained in the existing legal descriptions for defining the highway actually plot south of it. This is an administrative correction to accurately define the geographic coordinates where the restricted area boundaries intercept Wisconsin State Highway 21 and does not affect the overall restricted area boundaries; designated altitudes; times of designation; or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Effective date 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
In December 1986, the FAA published a rule in the
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 to amend restricted areas R–6901A and R–6901B at Fort McCoy, WI. This action corrects the geographic coordinates in the legal description boundary information to accurately reflect where the boundary actually intercepts Wisconsin State Highway 21. The correct geographic coordinates for identifying where the R–6901A boundary intercepts Wisconsin State Highway 21 are “lat. 44°00′28″ N., long. 90°36′41″ W.” and “lat. 44°00′27″ N., long. 90°38′45″ W.” The correct geographic coordinates for identifying where the R–6901B boundary intercepts Wisconsin State Highway 21 are “lat. 43°59′58″ N., long. 90°43′10″ W.” and “lat. 44°00′28″ N., long. 90°36′41″ W.”
This action also inserts an additional geographic coordinate to the eastern boundary of R–6901B to retain a shared boundary with the Volk South Military Operations Area. The FAA is taking this action to accurately define the geographic coordinates where the restricted area boundaries intercept Wisconsin State Highway 21, which is then used as a visual landmark describing the shared boundary between the two restricted areas, and is in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This is as administrative change to update the geographic (latitude/longitude) coordinates accurately reflecting where the boundaries intercept Wisconsin State Highway 21. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it makes an administrative change to the descriptions of Restricted Areas R–6901A and R–6901B, Fort McCoy, WI.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the descriptions of the affected restricted areas which corrects the geographic coordinates defining a segment of a state highway forming the shared boundary between the restricted areas. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current boundaries description and substituting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 44°08′40″ N., long. 90°44′20″ W.; to lat. 44°08′40″ N., long. 90°40′22″ W.; to lat. 44°09′36″ N., long. 90°40′22″ W.; to lat. 44°09′36″ N., long. 90°36′50″ W.; to lat. 44°00′28″ N., long. 90°36′41″ W.; then West along Wisconsin State Highway 21; to lat. 44°00′27″ N., long. 90°38′45″ W.; to lat. 44°01′45″ N., long. 90°44′31″ W.; to the point of beginning.
By removing the current boundaries description and substituting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 43°59′58″ N., long. 90°43′10″ W.; then East along Wisconsin State Highway 21; to lat. 44°00′28″ N., long. 90°36′41″ W.; to lat. 44°00′10″ N., long. 90°36′41″ W.; to lat. 44°00′02″ N., long. 90°36′35″ W.; to lat. 44°00′02″ N., long. 90°35′15″ W.; to lat. 43°56′22″ N., long. 90°35′22″ W.; to lat. 43°56′22″ N., long. 90°39′00″ W.; to lat. 43°56′38″ N., long. 90°41′00″ W.; to lat. 43°56′44″ N., long. 90°43′17″ W.; to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the name of the using agencies for Restricted Areas R–5115 in New Mexico and R–6316, R–6317, and R–6318 in Texas at the request of the Department of the Air Force. This is an administrative change only and does not affect the boundaries; designated altitudes; times of designation; or activities conducted within the affected restricted areas.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
As a result of the realignment of organizational responsibilities between federal agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been assigned the function of using agency for restricted areas R–5115 in New Mexico; and R–6316, R–6317, and R–6318 in Texas. The transfer of using agency operational control occurs October 1, 2013. This action is an administrative name change only and does not affect the current dimensions or use of the restricted areas.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by amending the using agency name for Restricted Areas R–5115 Deming, NM; R–6316 Eagle Pass, TX; R–6317 El Sauz, TX; and R–6318 Marfa, TX. The using agency for R–5115, R–6316, R–6317, and R–6318 is changed from “Western Air Defense Sector” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.”
This is an administrative change to update the title of the using agencies. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the descriptions of restricted areas R–5115, R–6316, R–6317, and R–6318 to reflect current organizational responsibilities.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action changes the using agency name for Restricted Area R–2515 Muroc Lake, CA, to read “Commander, 412th Test Wing (412 TW) Edwards AFB, CA” due to Department of the Air Force organizational realignments. There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; time of designation; or activities conducted within the restricted area.
Effective date 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by changing the using agency name for Restricted Area R–2515 Muroc Lake, CA, from “Commander Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA” to “Commander, 412th Test Wing (412 TW), Edwards AFB, CA.” As part of the Air Force Materiel Command's reorganization, responsibility for the day-to-day operation of R–2515 was assigned to the 412 TW at Edwards AFB, CA. This is an administrative change to update the name of the using agency. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted area; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as amends the description of Restricted Area R–2515, Edwards AFB, CA.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This action is an administrative change to the description of the affected restricted area to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Under Using Agency, remove “Commander, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA” and insert “Commander, 412 Test Wing (412 TW), Edwards AFB, CA.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the name of the using agencies for Restricted Areas R–2916, FL and R–7105, PR, at the request of the Department of the Air Force. This is an administrative change only and does not affect the boundaries; designated altitudes; time of designation; or activities conducted within the affected restricted areas.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
As a result of the realignment of organizational responsibilities between federal agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been assigned the function of using agency for restricted areas R–2916 in Florida and R–7105 in Puerto Rico. This is an administrative name change only and does not affect the current dimensions or use of the restricted areas.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by amending the using agency name for Restricted Areas R–2916 Cudjoe Key, FL and R–7105 Lajas, PR. The using agency for R–2916 is changed from “USAF, Southeast Air Defense Sector/Director of Operations, Tyndall AFB, FL,” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center, March ARB, CA.” The using agency for R–7105 is changed from “Puerto Rico Police Department” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Caribbean Air and Marine Operations Center, Punta Salinas, PR.”
This is an administrative change to update the title of the using agencies. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the descriptions of restricted areas to reflect current organizational responsibilities.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Under Using agency, remove “USAF, Southeast Air Defense Sector/Director of Operations, Tyndall AFB, FL” and insert “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center, March ARB, CA.”
Under Using agency, remove `Puerto Rico Police Department” and insert “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Caribbean Air and Marine Operations Center, Punta Salinas, PR.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the name of the using agency for Restricted Areas R–2309 and R–2312 located in Arizona. This is an administrative change only, requested by the Department of the Air Force, and does not affect the
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.
As a result of the realignment of organizational responsibilities between federal agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been assigned the function of using agency for restricted areas R–2309 and R–2312 located in Arizona. The transfer of using agency operational control occurs October 1, 2013. This action is an administrative name change only and does not affect the current dimensions or use of the restricted areas.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by amending the using agency name for Restricted Areas R–2309 Yuma, AZ, and R–2312 Fort Huachuca, AZ. The using agency for these restricted areas is changed from “U.S. Air Force, Western Air Defense Sector/DOS, McChord AFB, WA” to “U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.”
This is an administrative change to update the title of the using agencies. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the descriptions of restricted areas R–2309 and R–2312 to reflect current organizational responsibilities.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to update the using agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
By removing the current using agency and substituting the following:
Using agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), Riverside, CA.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during July 2013. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect a change of sponsorship for an ANADA.
This rule is effective October 25, 2013.
George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855; 240–276–9019;
FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during July 2013, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where
In addition, ECO LLC, 344 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08540 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200–348 for ECOMECTIN (ivermectin) Topical Solution to SmartVet USA, Inc., 22201 West Innovation Dr., Suite 170A, Olathe, KS 66061–1304. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations to reflect this change of sponsorship.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(1) 10 milligrams (mg) trimethoprim and 50 mg sulfadiazine; or
(2) 400 mg combined active ingredients (67 mg trimethoprim and 333 mg sulfadiazine).
(b)
(1) No. 000061 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) for use as in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) No. 051072 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) for use as in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(c)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(ii) For use with dinoprost tromethamine to synchronize estrous cycles to allow fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) in lactating dairy cows, administer to each cow 100 to 200 mcg gonadorelin by intramuscular injection, followed 6 to 8 days later by 25 mg dinoprost tromethamine by intramuscular injection, followed 30 to 72 hours later by 100 to 200 mcg gonadorelin by intramuscular injection.
(2)
(a)
(1) 100 milligrams (mg) tulathromycin
(2) 25 mg tulathromycin
(b)
(1) Product described as in paragraph (a)(1) for use as in paragraph (d).
(2) Product described as in paragraph (a)(2) for use as in paragraph (d)(2).
21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
In rule document 2013–17751 appearing on pages 44878–44881 in the issue of July 25, 2013, make the following correction:
On page 44879, in the first column, under the
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) amends its minimum internal control standards for Class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to add standards for kiosks.
Effective November 25, 2013.
National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100 Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202–632–7009; email:
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
The Commission recognized from their inception that the MICS would require periodic review and updates to keep pace with technology and has substantively amended them numerous times, most recently on September 21, 2012. 77 FR 58708.
On September 21, 2012, the Commission concluded nearly two years of consultation and drafting with the publication of comprehensive amendments, additions, and updates to Part 543, the minimum internal control standards (MICS) for Class II gaming operations. The regulations require tribes to establish controls and implement procedures at least as stringent as those described in this part to maintain the integrity of the gaming operation.
One of the 2012 additions was the inclusion of standards for kiosks, devices capable of redeeming vouchers and/or wagering credits or initiating transfers from a patron deposit account. The regulation provided general standards for kiosks but, upon further review, additional standards are needed for the surveillance of kiosks and for the collection and count of their contents.
The Commission published a proposed rule adding kiosk drop, count, fill, and surveillance standards to Part 543 on February 20, 2013 (78 FR 11793). The Commission received numerous comments and, after engaging in two tribal consultations and considering all public comments, has revised the rule.
Many commenters expressed overarching concerns with the rule's structure and scope, questioning whether the proposed rule truly contained minimum standards. The Commission agrees with the commenters, and has scaled back the rule to contain minimum internal controls for kiosks. To begin, commenters distinguished kiosks from player interfaces and card tables, explaining that kiosks operate on an imprest level, are maintained on the cage accountability, and do not present the same risks as the revenue generating centers. Therefore, they contend that it is excessive and inappropriate to apply the strict drop and count process to kiosks. The Commission agrees. Accordingly, references to the drop and count team have been replaced with more general terminology (i.e., authorized agents); a provision has been added to allow the count to take place “in a secure area, such as the cage or count room;” and many of the stringent count standards have been removed to account for those operations performing the kiosk count in the cage and to reflect lower level of risk presented by kiosks. By removing many of the count standards, the Commission has also resolved specific concerns about provisions that were contained in those standards, such as testing count equipment and assigning unique asset identification numbers.
Commenters also suggested that the kiosk standards would be better placed in the Cage section. The Commission acknowledges that kiosks are maintained on the cage accountability and that some provisions may reasonably be organized under the cage section, while others may overlap. Accordingly, where the Cage section contains fill and report standards, similar standards have been removed from the Drop and Count sections to avoid redundancy. The Commission declines, however, to relocate all kiosk standards to the Cage section because the process of removing the currency cassettes and financial instrument storage components is most similar to—though less stringent than—the drop and count process for player interfaces and card tables. By removing the report provisions, The Commission has also resolved commenters' concerns regarding the automatic generation of the reports and any incidental viewing of them by those removing the currency cassettes and/or financial instrument storage components.
Commenters also expressed concerns with definitions. Two comments suggested that the definition of kiosk should be limited only to the type of kiosks that dispense currency. It appears, however, that the commenters were referencing a definition of kiosk that has since been superseded by the publication of 25 CFR 543.2 on September 21, 2012 (77 FR 58708). The Commission believes that the current definition satisfies the commenters' concerns by appropriately limiting the term to redemption kiosks.
Additionally, commenters objected to defining currency cassettes as a “locked” compartment because not all cassettes are locked and it would be impracticable and cost prohibitive to have a lock installed on each cassette. The Commission agrees and has removed “locked” from the definition. Additionally, the Commission has replaced the controlled key standards for kiosks with a more general statement requiring controls to be established and procedures implemented to safeguard the keys for kiosks. Further, the Commission notes that § 543.18(d)(3) adequately protects the integrity of currency cassettes by requiring them to be secured with a lock or tamper resistant seal if not placed inside a kiosk.
Commenters stated that requiring three agents to remove currency cassettes and financial instrument storage components from kiosks is excessive. The Commission agrees and has reduced the requirement to two agents.
Commenters explained that requiring operations to test currency cassettes to verify the correct denomination in each cassette is not possible for many machines because they have multiple cassettes of the same denomination and
One commenter requested clarification of “emergency” as it applies to authorized persons being permitted to access full kiosk currency cassettes and financial instrument storage components “in an emergency” for resolution of a problem. As the Commission has explained in previous preambles (See 77 FR 58708), the tribal gaming regulatory authorities and operation management are in the best position to define the term and the Commission declines to substitute its judgment.
One commenter noted that coupons have cash value and must, rather than “may,” be recorded. The Commission chooses not to make this change, but intends to consider it in the next rulemaking session.
Commenters suggested that Tier A facilities should be exempted from the requirement to notify surveillance before removing cassettes and components from kiosks because they are not required to have a staffed surveillance room. The Commission acknowledges this concern, notes that the discrepancy also appears in the drop and count standards for player interfaces and card games, and intends to address the issue comprehensively in the next rulemaking session. In the meantime, the Commission does not expect operations to make futile efforts to notify a nonexistent surveillance staff member.
Finally, commenters expressed concern that the surveillance standard for kiosks may require more than one dedicated camera for each kiosk, presenting a considerable expense to operations. The Commission stresses that the cameras need only capture a general overview of each kiosk with sufficient clarity to identify the activity and the individuals performing it. This means, for example, that if a patron is redeeming a voucher, someone viewing the surveillance footage should be able to determine that the activity was a redemption. The camera is not required to capture the amount of the voucher or the denominations of currency being dispensed. The Commission declines to reduce the standard further.
The rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, local government agencies or geographic regions, nor will the proposed rule have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the enterprises, to compete with foreign based enterprises.
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The Commission has determined that the rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321,
The information collection requirements contained in this rule were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by 44 U.S.C. 3501,
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 25 CFR part 543 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2702(2), 2706(b)(1–4), 2706(b)(10).
(h)
(1) Surveillance must be notified prior to the financial instrument storage components or currency cassettes being accessed in a kiosk.
(2) At least two agents must be involved in the collection of currency cassettes and/or financial instrument storage components from kiosks and at least one agent should be independent of kiosk accountability.
(3) Currency cassettes and financial instrument storage components must be secured in a manner that restricts access to only authorized agents.
(4) Redeemed vouchers and pulltabs (if applicable) collected from the kiosk must be secured and delivered to the appropriate department (cage or accounting) for reconciliation.
(5) Controls must be established and procedures implemented to ensure that currency cassettes contain the correct
(i)
(i) Authorized agents; and
(ii) In an emergency, authorized persons for the resolution of a problem.
(2) The kiosk count must be performed in a secure area, such as the cage or count room.
(3) If counts from various revenue centers and kiosks occur simultaneously in the count room, procedures must be in effect that prevent the commingling of funds from the kiosks with any revenue centers.
(4) The kiosk financial instrument storage components and currency cassettes must be individually emptied and counted so as to prevent the commingling of funds between kiosks until the count of the kiosk contents has been recorded.
(i) The count of must be recorded in ink or other permanent form of recordation.
(ii) Coupons or other promotional items not included in gross revenue (if any) may be recorded on a supplemental document. All single-use coupons must be cancelled daily by an authorized agent to prevent improper recirculation.
(5) Procedures must be implemented to ensure that any corrections to the count documentation are permanent, identifiable, and the original, corrected information remains legible. Corrections must be verified by two agents.
(j)
(k)
(c) * * *
(6) Kiosks: The surveillance system must monitor and record a general overview of activities occurring at each kiosk with sufficient clarity to identify the activity and the individuals performing it, including maintenance, drops or fills, and redemption of wagering vouchers or credits.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) removes from regulations and/or modifies two types of progress reports: transfer reports and triennial reports.
This rule is effective on November 25, 2013.
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307–2105.
In this final rule, the Bureau removes from regulations and/or modifies two types of progress reports: Transfer reports and triennial reports. We published a proposed rule on this topic on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012).
Section 524.41, entitled “Types of progress reports,” lists several types of progress reports prepared for non-Bureau entities, such as for parole hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90 days before an inmate's release to a term of supervision), and for other reasons (such as upon court request or a clemency review). The previous regulations also identified two types of progress reports that were primarily intended for internal Bureau purposes: Those prepared when inmates transfer to community confinement or another institution, and those prepared triennially if not more frequently done for any other reason.
Current Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated the need to prepare a specific paper report when an inmate is transferred between Bureau facilities. When an inmate is transferred, all pertinent information regarding the progress of an inmate being transferred has already been updated in the Bureau's computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities. It is, therefore, unnecessary for a separate and specific progress report to be prepared by staff at the transferring Bureau facility for staff at the receiving Bureau facility, when receiving facility staff can easily access this information themselves through the Bureau's computer system.
However, when an inmate is transferring to any non-Bureau facility, staff at that facility may not have access to the Bureau's computer system. The proposed rule also contemplated removing the requirement to prepare transfer reports for inmates transferring to Bureau community confinement facilities. However, since publishing the proposed rule, it has come to the Bureau's attention that some Bureau community confinement facilities do not yet have the capability to access the Bureau's computer system. Therefore, because they do not have consistent access to the Bureau's computer system, it would be necessary for Bureau staff to prepare a transfer report detailing an inmate's progress for inmate transfers to both community confinement facilities and non-Bureau facilities. In an abundance of caution, therefore, we modify the proposed rule to indicate that transfer reports must continue to be prepared not only for inmate transfers to non-Bureau facilities, but for transfers to community confinement as well.
Before the development of the internal Bureau computer information network, triennial reports were a necessary tool used to provide staff with specific inmate information. As explained above, however, current Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated the need to prepare a specific progress report every 36 months, because all information
We received a total of 4 comments on the proposed rule. We address issues raised by each commenter below.
Two commenters expressed concerns with the Bureau's computer system, which we referred to in the proposed rule. We stated that there is no need for a transfer report when an inmate is transferred between Bureau facilities because inmate information is updated in the Bureau's computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities. We also stated that information regarding an inmate's progress is continually updated in the Bureau's computer system, obviating the need for a triennial report. The commenter stated that “there should be a backup in the case that the computer system becomes temporarily or permanently unavailable.”
The Bureau's “backup” in case of unavailability of the computer system is the Inmate Central File. All information regarding an inmate's progress is contained in that inmate's Central File, which is a physical, paper file which accompanies the inmate when he/she is transferred from facility to facility. Staff update the Central File whenever there is new activity with regard to the inmate. For instance, work reports are filed quarterly or monthly, inmate program completion certificates are filed when the inmate completes programs, disciplinary reports are filed when there are disciplinary incidents, etc., just as the computer system is continually updated.
Another commenter requested that the Bureau provide a “more clarified reason for the removal [of triennial reports and transfer reports between Bureau facilities] and how it will benefit the public and agency.” We explain the benefit in terms of the amount of staff time per year that would be saved. Both transfer reports and triennial reports take an average of one staff hour per report to complete. In the calendar year 2010, there were 69,517 transfers of inmates between Bureau facilities. Eliminating transfer reports between Bureau facilities would therefore result in a staff time savings of approximately 69,517 hours per year. As of January 2012, there are approximately 1,080 Bureau of Prisons case managers doing approximately 75 hour-length triennial reports per year. This results in an approximate staff time burden nationwide of 81,000 hours per year. Thus, eliminating transfer reports between Bureau facilities and triennial reports would save the Bureau approximately 150,517 staff hours per year, which could then be devoted to better ensuring the safety, security, and good order of the facilities and protection of the public through means such as detection of contraband, illegal communications, criminal activity, and other such problems.
A commenter had some specific questions with regard to transfer reports. He asked: “Does the [computer] network address every issue a report would? Does the staff at the receiving Bureau [facility] fully examine the inmate's record upon arrival or is it possible that some important information could be missed?”
The purpose of the transfer report was to provide a summary of the inmate's progress and adjustment for the receiving institution. However, on review of this process, the Bureau determined this summary to be unnecessary because (1) the information input in the computer system included far more than that contained in the transfer report; and (2) staff at the receiving facility are required to review the Inmate Central File for the transferred inmate immediately upon the inmate's arrival in order to determine suitability for placement in general population regardless of whether they had reviewed the summary contained in the transfer report. Further, any decisions pertaining to the inmate must be based on a review of the Inmate Central File as a whole and an evaluation of the inmate during intake screening, not solely on the transfer report. While it is always possible that information may be missed, it is more likely that information would be missed during a cursory review of the summary contained in a transfer report than during a more thorough review of the entire Inmate Central File.
Two commenters also raised concerns that elimination of the triennial report requirement would cause less frequent reviews of inmate progress by staff. One commenter asked, “Is it possible to include in the rule a clause that demands the information is reviewed triennially by the staff?”
The language in the regulation requiring a triennial report was a requirement on staff to complete the report, not a requirement on staff to review an inmate's progress. It is unnecessary to specifically include a clause in these regulations requiring staff to review an inmate's progress triennially because current regulations on inmate program reviews (28 CFR part 524) already require staff to review inmate progress through program reviews at least once every 180 calendar days or more frequently.
For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the proposed rule published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012), with a minor change to re-insert the requirement to prepare transfer reports for inmates transferring to community confinement.
This rule falls within a category of actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined not to constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was not reviewed by OMB.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
Prisoners.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521–3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware. The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure elements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO
This final rule is effective on November 25, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Rose Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at
On August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49409), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Delaware's submittal that provides the basic elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 NO
On March 27, 2013, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted a SIP revision that addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary to implement, maintain and enforce the 2010 NO
Specific requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and the rationale for EPA's proposed action to approve the SIP submittal are explained in the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving Delaware's submittal which provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action pertaining to Delaware's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions add ambient air quality standards and associated reference conditions for Fine Particulate Matter (PM
This rule is effective on December 24, 2013 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 25, 2013. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0594 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by email at
On July 26, 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted formal revisions to its SIP. The SIP revisions consist of adding section 9VAC5–30–67 as well as minor language revisions in section 9VAC5–30–15. Sections 9VAC5–30–67 and 9VAC5–30–15 contain the 2013 PM
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA is approving these revisions to add the 2013 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is making two separate and independent determinations regarding the Liberty-Clairton, Pennsylvania 1997 annual fine particulate (PM
This final rule is effective on November 25, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0769. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by email at
The Liberty-Clairton Area is comprised of the boroughs of Lincoln, Glassport, Liberty, and Port Vue and the City of Clairton, all in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
On July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44070), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the July 23, 2013 rulemaking action, EPA proposed to determine that the Liberty-Clairton Area attained the 1997 annual PM
These actions do not constitute a redesignation of the Liberty-Clairton Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM
Pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is making a determination that the Liberty-Clairton Area attained the 1997 annual PM
EPA is also making a determination that the Liberty-Clairton Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM
Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA has reviewed the annual PM
In the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared for this action, EPA has evaluated the air quality data for the Liberty-Clairton Area. EPA's review of the data indicates that the Liberty-Clairton Area has met the 1997 annual PM
EPA is making two separate and independent determinations regarding the Liberty-Clairton Area. First, pursuant to section 188(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA is making a determination that the Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 1997 annual PM
This action, which makes determinations of attainment based on air quality, will result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and/or will not impose any additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rulemaking 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This rulemaking action, determining that the Liberty-Clairton Area has attained the 1997 annual PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(j) EPA has determined, based on quality-assured air monitoring data for 2009–2011, that the Liberty-Clairton, PA fine particle (PM
(i)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Utah to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective November 25, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0727. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6142,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The initials
(iii) The words
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The initials
(vii) The initials
(viii) The initials
Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) of May 23, 2013 (78 FR 30830).
In our NPR, we proposed to act on submissions from the State of Utah to address infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
For reasons explained in the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve the submissions for infrastructure elements (C) and (J) with respect to PSD requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA also proposed to correct, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, an erroneous statement made in a previous action on Utah's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained in more detail in our proposal, in EPA's action on the 1997 ozone infrastructure submittal, EPA erroneously stated that the CAA made no requirements for state judicial review of PSD permits.
EPA correctly stated that the infrastructure SIP submittals no longer reflect state law. As stated in our proposal, the submittals were made on April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010, for the 1997 PM
EPA also correctly stated that revised Utah Code section 19–2–203 does not address disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. To the extent that EPA should have considered the revisions to Utah Code section 19–1–201 (which were not referenced in the infrastructure SIP submittals nor separately submitted for inclusion in the SIP), a general requirement such as that in section 19–1–203 to promulgate conflict of interest rules nonetheless does not address how potential conflicts of interest will be disclosed. Furthermore, as noted in our proposed action, the Utah SIP contains only a reference to Utah Code section 19–2–104. See 78 FR at 52842 n.5. Thus, even to the extent that a general provision requiring promulgation of conflict of interest rules can be said to “address” the specific disclosure requirements in CAA section 128(a)(2), Utah Code section 19–1–201 cannot be used for that purpose, as it is not approved into the SIP.
We turn to the rules in UAC sections R305–9–101 to –106 cited by the commenters. These rules have not been submitted to EPA by the State of Utah for inclusion in the SIP. If and when they and any other provisions are submitted by the State, EPA will evaluate them for compliance with section 128 and act accordingly. Until such provisions are approved into the SIP, they cannot be relied on to satisfy the requirements of section 128 for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission. Thus, it was not necessary for EPA to assess these unsubmitted provisions (which also were not cited in the infrastructure SIP submittals) in proposing disapproval of Utah's infrastructure SIP submissions for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
Aside from the requirement that provisions to meet section 128 must be approved into the SIP, the commenters do not explain how the new rules in UAC sections R305–9–101 to –106 would meet the requirements for section 128(a)(2) when, for example, the Director, acting alone and not as a member of the Board, approves a permit. As explained in our notice—and again undisputed by the commenters—the Board no longer has authority to approve permits that the State issues under the Act. By their own terms, the disclosure rules promulgated by the Department apply only to “matters before the Board.” See UAC R305–9–104, –105. Because the Board no longer has authority to approve permits, the disclosure rules do not apply to permit actions. In those actions, the Director acts alone and not as a member of the Board. The rules on their face thus do not appear to apply to the Director's decisions on permits or to satisfy the requirements of section 128(a)(2) as applied to the Director.
As mentioned above, when the State does submit provisions to meet the requirements of section 128, we will act on them. However, the comment provides no basis for us to change our proposed disapproval of the Utah infrastructure SIPs for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA adopted the PM
The PM
The 2010 rule amended EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, which establishes the minimum requirements that a state must meet in order to obtain EPA approval of the PSD program elements of a state implementation plan. Section 51.166(b) specifies that “[a]ll state plans shall use the following definitions for the purposes of this section.” Within this provision, section 51.166(b)(14)(i) establishes separate and distinct major source baseline dates for PM
EPA is approving Utah's April 17, 2008 and March 14, 2012 submissions with respect to the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA disapproves Utah's submissions with respect to the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the 1997 and 2006 PM
We are approving the following portions of the State's March 14, 2012 submission to address the 2008 PM
EPA is taking no action on infrastructure elements (D)(i)(I), interstate transport of pollutants which contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state, and (D)(i)(II), with respect to visibility requirements for the 2006 PM
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 some state law as meeting Federal requirements and disapproves other state law as not meeting Federal requirements; it 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(d) On March 14, 2012 the State of Utah submitted revisions to the State Implementation Plan that incorporated the required elements of the 2008 PM
(1)
(i) In the case of PM
(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
(iii) In the case of PM
(2)
(i) In the case of PM
(ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
(iii) In the case of PM
(3) The baseline date is established for each pollutant for which increments or other equivalent measures have been established if:
(i) The area in which the proposed source or modification would construct is designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the pollutant on the date of its complete application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166; and
(ii) In the case of a major stationary source, the pollutant would be emitted in significant amounts, or in the case of a major modification, there would be a significant net emissions increase of the pollutant.
(4)
(5) Area redesignations under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any major stationary source or major modification which:
(i) Establishes a minor source baseline date; or
(ii) Is subject to 40 CFR 52.21 or [Utah Administrative Code (UAC)] R307–405 and would be constructed in the same state as the state proposing the redesignation.
(6)
(i) Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy).
(ii) Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy.
(iii) Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy.
(iv) Particulate matter: 25 tpy of particulate matter emissions.
(v) PM
(vi) PM
(vii) Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.
(viii) Lead: 0.6 tpy.
(ix) Fluorides: 3 tpy.
(x) Sulfuric acid mist: 7 tpy.
(xi) Hydrogen sulfide (H
(xii) Total reduced sulfur (including H
(xiii) Reduced sulfur compounds (including H
(xiv) Municipal waste combustor organics (measured as total tetra-through octa-chlorinated diebenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans): 3.2 × 10
(xv) Municipal waste combustor metals (measured as particulate matter): 14 megagrams per year (15 tons per year).
(xvi) Municipal waste combustor acid gases (measured as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride): 36 megagrams per year (40 tons per year).
(xvii) Municipal solid waste landfills emissions (measured as nonmethane organic compounds): 45 megagrams per year (50 tons per year).
(7)
(i) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any pollutant identified under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) as a constituent or precursor for such pollutant. Precursors identified by the EPA Administrator for purposes of NSR are the following:
(A) Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone
(B) Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to PM
(C) Nitrogen oxides are presumed to be precursors to PM
(D) Volatile organic compounds are presumed not to be precursors to PM
(ii) Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act;
(iii) Any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated under or established by title VI of the Act;
(iv) Any pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act.
(v) Notwithstanding 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) through (iv), the term
(vi) Participate matter (PM) emissions, PM
(8)
(ii) For any period other than an annual period the applicable maximum allowable increase may be exceeded during one such period per year at any one location.
(b) On December 3, 2007, Jon L. Huntsman, Jr. Governor, State of Utah, provided a submission to meet the infrastructure requirements for the State of Utah for the 1997 PM
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to the State of Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP), Title V program, and Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) plan. The purpose of these revisions is to make general updates to existing state air quality rules, approve an exemption from constructing permitting for engines used in periodic pipeline testing, approve changes to state rules regarding regional haze requirements, and to approve adoption of Federal regulations including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide. EPA is approving the SIP
EPA is also taking direct final action to approve a Hospital Medical Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) section 111(d) negative declaration from the State of Iowa which certifies that HMIWIs, subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, do not exist in the State; and approving the rescission of its section 111(d)/129 plan and emission guidelines for HMIWI units. EPA is approving these actions pursuant to section 111 of the CAA.
EPA is also approving two minor administrative changes to the Title V program, pursuant to section 500 of the CAA.
This rule is effective December 24, 2013, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 25, 2013. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0410, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” ”us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 7, 2008, EPA Region 7 received a submission from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) requesting revisions to Iowa's Federally-approved SIP. These revisions made changes to Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” of the Iowa Administrative Code (IAC), promulgated by the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission (EPC). EPA took action on a portion of this plan submittal on June 26, 2012;
On January 11, 2010, EPA Region 7 received a submission from IDNR requesting revisions to Iowa's Federally-approved SIP and Title V program including changes to Chapter 20, “Scope of Title—Definitions—Forms—Rules of Practice,” Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” Chapter 23, “Emission Standards for Contaminants,” Chapter 25, “Measurement of Emissions,” Chapter 28, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and Chapter 33, “Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.” EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to these chapters in today's action. Also included in the submittal were revisions to Chapter 23, “Emission Standards for Contaminants,” which we are not acting on today, and will address in a separate action.
On March 1, 2011, EPA Region 7 received a submittal from the IDNR requesting revisions to Iowa's Federally-approved SIP and 111(d) plan, including changes to Chapter 24, “Excess Emissions,” Chapter 28, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and changes to Chapter 23, “Emission Standards.” EPA is taking direct final action to approve these changes in today's action.
EPA is approving changes to Chapter 22.9 related to the State's plan for Regional Haze. EPA took final action on the State's Regional Haze plan on June 26, 2012 (77 FR 38006), but inadvertently failed to act on changes to the state rules. These changes include adding definitions for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), deciview, and mandatory Class I area, as well as establishing procedures for how IDNR will notify source owners or operators about BART status, and establishing provisions for how IDNR may request a BART analysis from sources.
EPA is approving changes to the definitions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Chapter 20 and 33. These changes update the state rules to make them consistent with the Federal definitions as of January 21, 2009.
EPA is approving changes to several chapters which update the zip code for the IDNR Air Quality Bureau Offices. The offices remain in the current location; however, a ZIP code change for the current location took effect on July 1, 2009.
EPA is approving an exemption from construction permitting in Chapter 22.1 for certain temporary diesel engines used in periodic testing and maintenance of natural gas pipelines. The exemption contains conditions to ensure that engine emissions will not exceed the emission limits currently allowed under the State's small unit exemption.
EPA is approving changes to Chapter 24 which allow for initial reports of excess emissions to be made via electronic mail (email). Facility owners and operators are still allowed to make initial reports in person or by telephone. Owners or operators must still follow up their initial report with a written, hard-copy report.
EPA is approving minor changes to IDNR's stack testing notifications and test protocols in Chapter 25.1 which clarify IDNR's procedures.
EPA is approving Iowa's amendments to Chapter 28, to include the adoption by reference of the NAAQS for 2008 Ozone
Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources.
EPA originally promulgated emission guidelines for existing HMIWI in 1997, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act. EPA codified revised regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce. A HMIWI unit as defined in 40 CFR 60.51c is any device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste. Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the revised guidelines at subpart Ce, states with subject sources must submit to EPA plans that implement the Emission Guidelines.
Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. 40 CFR part 62 provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. As aforementioned, when designated facilities are located in a state, a state must develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant.
However, 40 CFR 62.06 provides that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect, or negative declaration, in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirement to develop a plan meeting the requirements of subpart Ce.
The State of Iowa HMIWI plan and related state rule were approved by EPA on June 17, 1999, and codified in 40 CFR Part 62, subpart Q. (64 FR 32427) Since that time, the two designated incinerator facilities in Iowa subject to the plan have been dismantled, according to documentation submitted by IDNR.
Therefore, on March 1, 2011, EPA received a submittal from IDNR requesting EPA approval of a negative declaration for HMIWI and requesting EPA to approve Iowa's revocation of the prior 111(d) plan for HMIWI units in Iowa. The state submittal included supplemental documentation about the dismantling and removal of the previously-affected HMIWI, the name of each designated facility that has been permanently shutdown, and the year it was dismantled.
Pursuant to the authority of Iowa Code section 455B.133, the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission amended the 111(d) plan to remove the emission guidelines for existing HMIWI in Chapter 23, “Emission Standards for Contaminants,” paragraph 23.1 (5) “b” of the Iowa Administrative Code. EPA requested that Iowa verify that amendments to EPA's original 1997 HMIWI requirements finalized in 2009 and 2011 did not affect Iowa's negative declaration (74 FR 51367 and 76 FR 18407). IDNR submitted documentation on May 28, 2013, reaffirming that these amendments to the rule did not impact their negative declaration that determined no units within the state are subject to the emissions guidelines of HMIWI. EPA is approving the rescission of the emission guidelines and 111 (d) plan for existing HMIWI.
EPA is approving two changes to IDNR's Title V program. One change is the updating of the Air Quality Bureau's zip code, as previously stated; the other is to approve a change to the requirements for submitting a Title V operating permit application. Facility owners or operators submitting electronic applications are no longer required to also submit a hard copy application to EPA Region 7, as EPA now has access to IDNR's Title V database, which allows EPA to review electronic copies of applications.
For clarification, the revision to remove the requirement that facilities submit a hard copy application to EPA does not pertain or otherwise interfere with the independent obligations the state is responsible for under the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) found at 40 CFR Part 3. As stated in 74 FR 68692, EPA is not acting on the revision to Iowa Administrative Code 567–22.105(1) that allows facility owners or operators to submit an electronic Title V operating permit application until the State obtains approval from EPA that its electronic document receiving system is consistent with CROMERR.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to Chapter 22.9 related to the State's plan for Regional Haze.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the definitions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Chapter 20 and 33.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to several chapters which update the zip code for the IDNR Air Quality Bureau Offices.
EPA is taking final action to approve an exemption from construction permitting in Chapter 22.1 for certain temporary diesel engines used in periodic testing and maintenance of natural gas pipelines.
EPA is taking final action to approve changes to Chapter 24 which allow for initial reports of excess emissions to be made via email.
EPA is taking final action to approve minor changes to IDNR's stack testing notifications and test protocols in Chapter 25.1.
EPA is taking final action to approve amendments to Chapter 28, to include the adoption by reference of the NAAQS for 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide into Iowa's Federally-approved SIP.
EPA is taking final action to amend Iowa's 111(d) plan for HMIWI units to: (1) approve Iowa's negative declaration and (2) approve Iowa's revocation of the 111(d) plan for HMIWI units in Iowa. However, if an affected Iowa HMIWI unit is discovered in the State of Iowa in the future, all the requirements of the Federal plan (including revisions or amendments), part 62, subpart HHH, will be applicable to the affected unit, until Iowa adopts and EPA approves a new plan to address such unit.
EPA is taking final action to approve two changes to IDNR's Title V program, updating of the Air Quality Bureau's zip code, and removing the requirement to submit a hard-copy application to EPA Region 7.
EPA is processing these actions in a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This action also merely approves a state negative declaration as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. The State's negative determination is a determination that there are no sources in the State subject to the emission guidelines; therefore, a 111(d) plan is not needed.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and approves a negative declaration and 111(d) plan revocation, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Additionally, in reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves state rules implementing Federal standards and a state negative declaration as required by Federal regulations. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
This action, including the SIP revisions and approval of the State of Iowa section 111(d)/129 negative declaration and rescission of the HMIWI plan may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Parts 52, 62, and 70 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
(b)
42 U.S.C. 7401
(n) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted for program approval a revision to 567–22.105(1) on January 11, 2010. The State effective date was November 11, 2009. These revisions to the Iowa program, are approved effective December 24, 2013.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; emergency action extended.
Pursuant to its emergency authority, NMFS extends and revises an emergency action that temporarily suspended and modified monkfish landing limits for vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D fishing under a Northeast multispecies day-at-sea, or both a Northeast multispecies and monkfish day-at-sea, in the monkfish Northern Fishery Management Area.
The effective date of the emergency temporary rule published April 30, 2013, beginning at 78 FR 25214 is extended through April 30, 2014. The amendments to § 648.94 (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(iv) are effective at 0001 hr on October 28, 2013, through April 30, 2014.
Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for this action are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930–2276, or at the following internet address:
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9141, fax (978) 281–9135.
The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) substantially reduced the 2013 annual catch limit (ACL) for several Northeast (NE) multispecies (groundfish) stocks as part of Framework Adjustment 50 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (78 FR 26172; May 3, 2013). That action was necessary to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished groundfish stocks consistent with rebuilding plans required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). These reductions are expected to result in substantial adverse economic impacts to vessels participating in the groundfish fishery, particularly for those vessels enrolled in the groundfish sector program, which allocates a share of the available ACL of each stock to collectives of vessels known as “sectors.” In anticipation of such impacts, at its November 2012 meeting the NEFMC requested that NMFS implement an emergency action to eliminate monkfish trip (landing) limits for vessels issued a limited access permit fishing under a groundfish sector on a groundfish day-at-sea (DAS) in the monkfish Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA). This request was intended to increase fishing opportunities and associated fishing revenue to help mitigate the adverse impacts to vessels and fishing communities affected by reductions to groundfish ACLs in fishing year (FY) 2013.
NMFS developed a proposed rule to implement emergency measures in the monkfish fishery based on the NEFMC request for emergency action and published a proposed rule justifying emergency action according to agency guidelines (62 FR 44421; August 21, 1997) in the
Based on additional analysis and an evaluation of public comment, we revised the proposed measures through an emergency interim final rule that published in the
Pursuant to section 305(c)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, management measures implemented by the April 30, 2013, emergency interim final rule may be extended for an additional period of up to 186 days, provided (1) the public has had the opportunity to comment on the emergency regulations, and (2) if the emergency is requested by a fishery management council, the council is actively preparing an action to address the emergency on a permanent basis. As noted above, the public has had two opportunities to comment on the emergency management measures. Further, the NEFMC is preparing Framework Adjustment 8 to the Monkfish FMP that is considering increasing the monkfish landing limits applicable to vessels fishing under a groundfish, but not a monkfish, DAS in the NFMA starting in FY 2014. This measure would increase fishing opportunities and associated revenue for vessels in the groundfish fishery. Therefore, both criteria specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act necessary to extend the emergency action have been met. Based on public comments and a consideration of new information and data describing the performance of the monkfish and groundfish fisheries during the first 4 months of FY 2013 (May-August), this temporary rule extends and revises the measures implemented by the April 30, 2013, interim final rule for the remainder of FY 2013 (through April 30, 2014).
This temporary rule extends and revises the April 30, 2013, emergency action that suspended and modified monkfish landing limits for vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit that are fishing under a groundfish DAS or both a groundfish and monkfish DAS in the monkfish NFMA for the remainder of FY 2013. Existing monkfish landing limits for vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category A or B permit and fishing under a monkfish DAS, or vessels issued an open access monkfish Category E permit that are not operating under any DAS (i.e., vessels that catch monkfish while targeting other fisheries) remain the same, as specified in Table 1. In addition, the overfishing level (OFL), acceptable biological catch level (ABC), ACL, annual catch target (ACT), and total allowable landing (TAL) amounts remain 19,557 mt, 7,592 mt, 7,592 mt, 6,567 mt, and 5,854 mt, respectively, as implemented in either Amendment 5 (76 FR 30265; May 25, 2011) or Framework Adjustment 7 to the Monkfish FMP (76 FR 66192; October 26, 2011).
New information and data describing the performance of the monkfish fishery during May-August 2013 (completed landings data for September are not available at this time) indicate that monkfish landings in both the NFMA and SFMA remain slightly below the monkfish landing trajectory observed in both areas during FY 2012. During May-August 2013, monkfish landings in the NFMA have decreased by about 3 percent relative to the same months in FY 2012, while SFMA monkfish landings have decreased by 25 percent. Further, monkfish DAS usage has decreased by 9 percent in the NFMA and 12 percent in the SFMA compared to May-August 2012. Forty more trips have been taken under both a groundfish and a monkfish DAS in the NFMA compared to FY 2012 (a 35-percent increase), while fewer monkfish trips were taken in the SFMA (36 percent fewer groundfish/monkfish DAS trips and 5 percent fewer monkfish-only DAS trips). However, it is unclear whether this represents an actual shift in behavior caused by the emergency measures, or inter-annual fluctuation in vessel operations. If the recently observed trends in monkfish landings and operations continue, 2013 monkfish landings will fall well short of the 2013 TALs in both the NFMA and SFMA, similar to what has been observed since FY 2011 when these TALs were first implemented (see Table 2).
As discussed more thoroughly in the April 30, 2013, interim final rule for this emergency action, the MAFMC and some industry participants were concerned that the originally proposed emergency measures could substantially increase the effective effort on monkfish by inadvertently and unintentionally creating incentives for vessels to fish for monkfish using readily available groundfish DAS in the NFMA, and then using their allocated monkfish DAS to fish for monkfish in the SFMA. This would reflect a substantial change from recent fishing practices. At the time, we
While the potential remains for the measures implemented by this temporary rule to increase monkfish landings and cause effort to shift into the SFMA, monkfish landings would have to increase substantially during the remainder of FY 2013 (i.e., through April 30, 2014) to exceed the FY 2013 monkfish TALs. Based on the recent performance of the monkfish fishery in both areas, there is a low probability that any potential landings increases or effort shifts would be substantial enough to increase monkfish catch such that the FY 2013 NFMA or SFMA monkfish TAL, ACL, or OFL would be exceeded. Because neither the NFMA nor SFMA monkfish stocks are currently overfished, overfishing levels are substantially higher than the TALs for each stock, and biomass is well above the current biomass thresholds; any shift of effort caused by these emergency measures is not likely to result in overfishing either stock, or cause any biological harm to these stocks during the remainder of FY 2013. We still retain the ability to reinstate monkfish landing limits in the NFMA at any time during the remainder of FY 2013, thereby preventing the emergency measures from further influencing potential shifts in vessel operations.
Suspending monkfish landing limits for Category C or D monkfish vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS or both a groundfish and monkfish DAS in the NFMA for the remainder of FY 2013 offers additional opportunities to land monkfish and increase the likelihood that additional monkfish would be landed from the NFMA. This may help mitigate negative impacts to vessels affected by recent reductions in groundfish ACLs—the main purpose of this action. Any effort shift that may result from this action would be temporary in nature, and may actually increase the likelihood that the fishery would more fully harvest the available TAL. In doing so, the fishery may better optimize yield and maximize economic benefits to the various fishing sectors consistent with Objective 2 of the Monkfish FMP.
This action authorizes the Regional Administrator to reinstate existing monkfish landing limits for limited access monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS or both a groundfish and monkfish DAS in the NFMA at any time through April 30, 2014, if available data indicate that the NFMA monkfish TAL or ACT may be exceeded during FY 2013. If such landing limits are reinstated, monkfish Category C and D vessels fishing in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS would be subject to monkfish landing limits of 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail weight and 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight per DAS, respectively, for the remainder of FY 2013, while vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS would be subject to monkfish landing limits of up to 25 percent of the total weight of fish on board, not to exceed 300 lb (136 kg) tail weight per DAS. This discretion is necessary to ensure that unexpected changes in fishing behavior in response to this emergency action do not cause monkfish landings or catch, when discards are included, to exceed the FY 2013 NFMA monkfish TAL or ACT, respectively, and result in overfishing for NFMA monkfish. Any reinstatement of monkfish possession limits in the NFMA would be implemented consistent with the APA.
Fifteen comments were received during the public comment period on the interim final rule from eight individuals, three commercial fishing organizations, two fish dealers, the NEFMC, and the MAFMC. Only comments that were applicable to the proposed measures, including the analyses used to support these measures, are addressed in this preamble. Overall, 4 commenters supported the proposed action, while 11 opposed it.
The commenter appeared to object to how we responded to Comment 4 in the April 30, 2013, interim final rule for this action. As noted in the response to that comment, we must rely on the best available
Recent DAS usage patterns suggest that the fishery in general is not restricted by an insufficient number of monkfish DAS. On a yearly basis, only about 16 percent of allocated monkfish DAS are used in both areas combined, and only about 5 percent of allocated monkfish DAS have been used in the NFMA during recent years. While DAS allocations may be constraining for individual vessels, it does not appear that monkfish DAS allocations are the primary reason for low monkfish landings from the NFMA fishery at large. The NEFMC is considering adjustments to both monkfish DAS allocations and landing limits as part of Framework Adjustment 8 to the Monkfish FMP for implementation during FY 2014.
Vessels will still be subject to existing regulations in other fisheries, including effort controls such as DAS, possession and landing limits, minimum mesh size requirements, and hard quotas and area closures, to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded and that overfishing does not occur on any species, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Therefore, the measures implemented by this temporary rule, in addition to existing measures in other fisheries, should ensure that other species are not depleted as a result of this action.
In extending the emergency interim final rule, NMFS has made two changes to the proposed rule, including changes as a result of public comment. In § 648.94, this rule suspends paragraph (b)(3)(i), and adds the paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to exempt monkfish Category C and D vessels from existing monkfish landing limits when fishing under a groundfish DAS in the NFMA as part of this temporary rule. Both of these changes are consistent with the initial proposed emergency measures.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the emergency measures implemented by this temporary rule are consistent with the Monkfish FMP, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, agency guidelines on emergency rules, and other applicable law. NMFS, in making a final determination, has taken into account the data, views, and comments received during the public comment period for the interim final rule.
This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This interim final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or takings implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
Relevant analyses and determinations required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act were summarized in the classification section of both the February 25, 2013, proposed rule and the April 30, 2013, emergency interim final rule, and are not repeated here. All relevant comments in response to the IRFA were summarized and addressed in the Classification section of the April 30, 2013, interim final rule for this action. No new issues related to the IRFA or FRFA were raised during the public comment period for the interim final rule. Economic impacts of the measures implemented by this temporary rule are outlined as Alternative 2 in section 5.2.3 of the EA prepared for this action (see
On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (June 20, 2013; 78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and prior to SBA's June 20 final rule, a FRFA was developed for this action using SBA's former size standards. We have reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards. Under the former, lower size standards, 277 entities subject to this action were considered small entities, while 26 were considered large entities in FY 2011 (the latest year for which complete data are available), as described in Section 7.11.2 of the EA prepared for this action (see
An EA was prepared for this emergency action, with impacts for the measures implemented by this temporary rule described under Alternative 2 throughout the document. Because the EA evaluated impacts of alternatives over the duration of FY 2013, and this temporary rule implements Alternative 2 considered in that EA, the impacts of implementing emergency management measures through this temporary rule have already been considered. A copy of the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for the emergency action are available from the Regional Administrator (see
Because this rule relieves a restriction by suspending the current monkfish possession restrictions for vessels fishing under a groundfish DAS or both a groundfish and monkfish DAS in the NFMA, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Vessels issued a Federal limited access monkfish Category C or D permit fishing in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS would otherwise be subject to a monkfish landing limit of 1,250 lb (567 kg) or 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight per
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this temporary rule are available from the Northeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits for the groundfish and monkfish fisheries. The guide and this temporary rule will be available upon request from the Regional Administrator (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv)
(B)
(C)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to fully use the 2013 total allowable catch of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 22, 2013, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 1, 2013. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., November 6, 2013
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0180 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Josh Keaton, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2013 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 27,372 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013). The D season apportionment of the Statistical Area 630 pollock TAC is 9,378 mt.
In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) hereby reapportions 1,876 mt of the C season underharvest of pollock in Statistical Area 610 to the D season apportionment of the Statistical Area 630 pollock TAC. Therefore, the revised D season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 11,254 mt (9,378 mt plus 1,876 mt) and the revised 2013 TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 29,248 mt (27,372 mt plus 1,876 mt).
NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 8, 2013 (78 FR 62005, October 11, 2013).
As of October 21, 2013, NMFS has determined that approximately 650 metric tons of pollock remain in the directed fishing allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2013 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 22, 2013.
The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of the directed pollock fishery in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 21, 2013.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow pollock fishery in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until November 6, 2013.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory basis.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is making available a regulatory basis document to support the potential amendment of its regulations concerning nuclear power plant licensees' onsite emergency response capabilities. The NRC is not seeking public comments on this document. The issuance of this regulatory basis document is one of the actions stemming from the NRC's lessons-learned efforts associated with the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan.
At this time, the NRC is not soliciting formal public comments on this document. There will be an opportunity for formal public comment on the proposed rule when it is published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0031 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may access information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–4123; email:
As the NRC continues its ongoing proposed rulemaking effort to amend portions of Parts 50 and 55 of Title 10 of the
The NRC has posted on
In addition, the NRC has posted preliminary proposed rule language related to this rulemaking as Appendix C of the regulatory basis. This preliminary proposed rule language contains one portion of the NRC's proposed changes. This language does not represent a final NRC staff position nor has it been reviewed by the Commission. Therefore, the preliminary proposed rule language may undergo significant revision during the rulemaking process.
The NRC is not requesting formal public comments on the regulatory basis or the preliminary proposed rule language. The NRC may post additional materials, including other preliminary proposed rule language, to the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Several NRC staff members did not agree with some content of the regulatory basis and submitted non-concurrences on this document. In accordance with the NRC's non-concurrence process, NRC management and staff worked to address the staff members' concerns, and documentation of the non-concurrences can be found at Accession Nos. ML13269A322 and ML13269A327. The non-concurrence issues were assessed, and the regulatory basis was revised to address the staff members' concerns. As a result, four of the staff members concurred, and one staff member reaffirmed his non-concurrence.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010, (Pub. L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. Although regulations are exempt under the Act, the NRC is applying the same principles to its rulemaking documents. Therefore, the NRC has written this document, including the preliminary proposed rule
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an electronic flight control system that prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. 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 December 9, 2013.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2013–0772 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2011; facsimile 425–227–1149.
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 will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for its new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The airplane has a conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500–E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered fly-by-wire elevators, ailerons, and rudders controlled by the pilot or copilot sidestick.
The design of the electronic flight control system for the Model EMB–550 airplane incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full time basis that prevents the flight crew from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This feature is considered novel and unusual in that the current regulations do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations for such systems.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Federal Code of Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
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 Model EMB–550 airplane 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 § 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 Model EMB–550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The design of the electronic flight control system incorporates normal load factor limiting on a full-time basis that will prevent the flight crew from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This feature is considered novel and because the current regulations do not provide standards for maneuverability and controllability evaluations for such systems. Therefore, a special condition is needed to ensure adequate maneuverability and controllability when using this design feature.
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 sections do not specify requirements or policy for demonstrating maneuver control that impose any handling qualities requirements beyond the design limit structural loads. Nevertheless, some pilots have become accustomed to the availability of this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme emergency such as upset recoveries or collision avoidance.
As with previous fly-by-wire airplanes, the FAA has no regulatory or safety reason to prohibit a design for an electronic flight control system with load factor limiting. It is possible that pilots accustomed to this feature feel more freedom in commanding full-stick displacement maneuvers because of the following:
• Knowledge that the limit system will protect the structure,
• Low stick force/displacement gradients,
• Smooth transition from pilot elevator control to limit control.
The special conditions will ensure adequate maneuverability and controllability when using this design feature.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB–550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes.
1. Flight Envelope Protection: Normal Load Factor (
To meet the intent of adequate maneuverability and controllability required by § 25.143(a), and in addition to the requirements of § 25.143(a) and in the absence of other limiting factors, the following special conditions are proposed based on § 25.333(b):
(a) The positive limiting load factor must not be less than:
(1) 2.5
(2) 2.0
(b) The negative limiting load factor must be equal to or more negative than:
(1) Minus 1.0
(2) 0.0
(c) Maximum reachable positive load factor wings level may be limited by the characteristics of the electronic flight control system or flight envelope protections (other than load factor protection) provided that:
(1) The required values are readily achievable in turns, and
(2) That wings level pitch up is satisfactory.
(d) Maximum achievable negative load factor may be limited by the characteristics of the electronic flight control system or flight envelope protections (other than load factor protection) provided that:
(1) Pitch down responsiveness is satisfactory, and
(2) From level flight, 0
(e) Compliance demonstration with the above requirements may be performed without ice accretion on the airframe.
(f) These proposed special conditions do not impose an upper bound for the normal load factor limit, nor does it require that the limiter exist. If the limit is set at a value beyond the structural design limit maneuvering load factor
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of severe corrosion on bonding jumpers installed on the flight control surfaces. This proposed AD would require repetitive bonding jumper inspections for corrosion, sealant disbond, and insufficient sealant coverage, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also specifies an optional action of doing an inspection for corrosion damage of the bonding brackets, and corrective actions if necessary, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require installing certain bonding jumpers and related ground clips and fasteners to the elevators, horizontal stabilizers, rudder, and vertical fin, removing certain bonding jumpers and installing new bonding jumpers, and replacing single-tabbed brackets with two-tabbed brackets. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2013.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6482; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report of severe corrosion on 15 bonding jumpers on the ailerons, horizontal stabilizers, and vertical fins of six airplanes that were approximately eight years old. We also received a similar report on an airplane that was approximately seven years old. The corrosion is caused by sealant voids, which allow moisture under the sealant and then trap it inside.
The bonding jumpers are part of the lightning protection ground path for the flight control surfaces that prevent excessive lightning energy from traveling to the primary flight control actuators and then to one of the four ACEs. Corrosion damage on the bonding jumper connections creates high resistance bonding paths that could, in the event of a lightning strike, potentially expose multiple flight control system ACEs to high voltage transients. The excessive voltage could cause damage to the ACEs and result in the loss of the ability to command individual flight control surfaces or cause uncommanded motion of individual flight control surfaces.
A new category 2 fay seal method has been developed to improve the integrity of the bonding jumper connections. This new method creates a continuous layer of sealant inside and outside of all mating surfaces to keep moisture away from the bonding surfaces and prevent corrosion.
We reviewed the following service bulletins:
This proposed AD is related to AD 2012–08–13, Amendment 39–17030 (77 FR 24357, April 24, 2012). AD 2012–08–13 requires replacing certain single-tabbed bonding brackets in the airplane empennage with two-tabbed bonding brackets. AD 2012–08–13 also requires, for certain airplanes, installing new bonding jumpers, and measuring the resistance of the modified installation to verify resistance is within specified limits. AD 2012–08–13 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0010, Revision 1, dated April 17, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0014, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2010; as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions.
This proposed AD would require inspecting the installation of the bonding jumpers associated with AD 2012–08–13, Amendment 39–17030 (77 FR 24357, April 24, 2012).
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed Rule and the Service Information.”
The phrase “corrective actions” might be used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 131 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain on-condition repairs 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 December 9, 2013.
This AD affects AD 2012–08–13, Amendment 39–17030 (77 FR 24357, April 24, 2012).
This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, and –300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of severe corrosion on bonding jumpers installed on the flight control surfaces. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion on bonding jumpers installed on the flight control surfaces, which, in the event of a lighting strike, could damage the actuator control electronics (ACEs) and result in the
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, except as specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection or a detailed inspection using a borescope, as applicable, for corrosion, sealant disbond, and insufficient sealant coverage of bonding jumpers; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with Option 1, and Option 2, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do a detailed inspection using a borescope if the horizontal stabilizer tips have not been removed. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months. Doing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD on a bonding jumper terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph. Doing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD terminates repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that bonding jumper.
(1) Doing a general visual inspection or a detailed inspection for corrosion damage of the bonding jumper brackets, and all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) The repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD are not required on the bonding jumpers that were removed, inspected, and replaced with new bonding jumpers and new fasteners using the new category 2 fay sealed direct standard ground stud installation method, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013.
(1) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, install new bonding jumpers, and do resistance measurements of the modified installation to verify resistance is within the limits specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0010, Revision 1, dated April 17, 2001. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0010, Revision 1, dated April 17, 2001.
AD 2012–08–13, Amendment 39–17030 (77 FR 24357, April 24, 2012), refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0010, Revision 1, dated April 17, 2001, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of AD 2012–08–13.
(2) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, replace certain single-tabbed bonding brackets in the airplane empennage with two-tabbed bonding brackets, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0014, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2010.
AD 2012–08–13, Amendment 39–17030 (77 FR 24357, April 24, 2012), refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 777–55A0014, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2012–08–13.
(1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, specifies a compliance time after the “Original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Condition” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, refers to a condition as of the “Original Issue date of this service bulletin.” This AD applies to the corresponding condition as of the effective date of this AD.
(3) If any corrosion damage is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, Revision 1, dated April 1, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the corrosion damage using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) For Groups 1, 2, and 6 through 9, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009: This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD and the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) For Groups 3 through 5, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009: This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, except for the actions required for bonding jumpers 21 and 22, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD. If a check of the airplane's maintenance records positively determines that bonding jumpers 21 and 22 were inspected before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Option 1 of Work Package 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009, this paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the inspected bonding jumpers.
(3) For Groups 3 through 5, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009: This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD; provided that a check of the airplane's maintenance records positively determines that bonding jumpers 21 and 22 were replaced in accordance with Option 2 of Work Package 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–27A0078, dated September 10, 2009, or were replaced using the new Category 2 fay sealed direct ground stud installation method.
(4) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0010, dated October 26, 2000, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(5) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–55A0014, dated May 8, 2008, 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 (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards 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 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6482; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. This proposed AD results from 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 cracks of the nose landing gear (NLG) lower link. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2013.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise–81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823 620134; fax: +39 0823 622899; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4119; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
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 http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2013–0134, dated July 2, 2013 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During an inspection of a P2006T, a nose landing gear (NLG) lower link was found with two cracks. The affected NLG lower link is part of NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–1417–000.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to NLG failure, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam (hereafter referred to as Tecnam) issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB–128–CS, providing inspection instructions. Tecnam also developed an improved NLG lower link assembly with P/N 26–8–8000–000, which can be installed in service by accomplishment of Tecnam SB–104–CS.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires, for aeroplanes equipped with NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–1417–000, a one-time inspection of the NLG lower link and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action. This AD also requires installation of the improved NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–8000–000.
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl issued Service Bulletin No. SB 104–CS, Edition 2, Revision 1, dated March 28, 2013 (now superseded); Service Bulletin No. SB 128–CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013; Job Card 442, Revision 1, dated February 11, 2013; Job Card 468, dated October 12, 2012; and Job Card 528, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $297.50, or $42.50 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $1,800, for a cost on U.S. operators of $16,170, or $2,310 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 9, 2013.
None.
This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 001/US through S/N 9999/US, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
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 cracking of the nose landing gear (NLG) lower link. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in an NLG lower link, which could lead to NLG failure, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this AD:
(1) For airplanes with an NLG lower link assembly part number (P/N) 26–8–1417–000 installed, within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the NLG lower link part (this is in the NLG -000 assembly) P/N 26–8–1417–1 following the INSPECTION/REPLACEMENT INSTRUCTIONS of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 128–CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.
(2) If a crack is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the NLG lower link assembly with an improved assembly. Follow, as applicable, sections 1 through 8 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 442, Revision 1, dated February 11, 2013; sections 1 through 7 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 468, dated October 12, 2012; or sections 1 through 6 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 528, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2013, as specified in the Required Material section of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 128–CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013; and as specified in the INSPECTION/REPLACEMENT INSTRUCTIONS of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 128–CS, Revision 0, dated May 15, 2013.
(3) Unless already done as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–1417–000 with an improved assembly. Follow, as applicable, sections 1 through 8 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 442, Revision 1, dated February 11, 2013; sections 1 through 7 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 468, dated October 12, 2012; or sections 1 through 6 (including subparagraphs) of Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Job Card 528, Revision 1, dated April
(4) After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable, do not install an NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–1417–000 or an NLG lower link part (this is in the NLG -000 assembly) P/N 26–8–1417–1 on that airplane.
(5) For an airplane with an NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–8000–000 already installed, after the effective date of this AD, do not install a NLG lower link assembly P/N 26–8–1417–000 or a NLG lower link P/N 26–8–1417–1 on that airplane.
This AD provides credit for the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and any necessary replacement required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD if already done before the effective date of this AD following Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Service Bulletin No. SB 104–CS, Edition 2, Revision 1, dated March 28, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2013–0134, dated July 2, 2013 for more information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Missouri regulatory program (Missouri program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Missouri proposes revisions to its Valid Existing Rights Rules and the Coal Alignment Rules. Missouri intends to revise its program to be no less effective than the Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Missouri program and this proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., c.d.t., November 25, 2013. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on November 19, 2013. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on November 12, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. MO–041–FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Program, 1738 East Elm Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101, Telephone: (573) 751–4041.
Len Meier, Division Chief, Alton Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 501 Belle Street, Suite 216, Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “. . . State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent
By letter dated August 13, 2013 (Administrative Record No. MO–678), Missouri sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Missouri proposes to make changes to its Code of State Regulations at Title 10, Division 40 (10 CSR 40) in the following chapters:
Missouri proposes to add clarifying language and delete verbiage no longer required. These changes are editorial and administrative in nature, correcting references and grammatical errors.
Missouri proposes to change terms, add clarifying language, make grammar changes, and correct reference errors. The items below list the affected rule sections and proposed changes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.
If you submit written or electronic comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for your recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involver personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Montana regulatory program (hereinafter, the “Montana program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (“SMCRA” or “the Act”). Montana proposes revisions and additions to statute regarding permit application requirements, prospecting application requirements, annual reporting requirements for coal permittees, and lawsuits for damages to water supplies. Montana is also proposing to revise its rules at Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.24 subchapter 10 to incorporate rule changes regarding a new expedited coal prospecting permitting process.
This document gives the times and locations that the Montana program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., [m.d.t.] November 25, 2013. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on
You may submit comments by either of the following two methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “III. Public Comment Procedures” in the
In addition to viewing the docket and obtaining copies of documents at
Jeffrey Fleischman, Telephone: (307) 261–6550. Internet:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . . ; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980,
By letter dated August 20, 2013, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM–2013–0009–0001) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Specifically, Montana proposes changes to the Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act (MSUMRA) that pertain to permit application requirements, coal prospecting application requirements, annual reporting requirements for coal permittees, and lawsuits for damages to water supplies. Montana intends to revise its program to comply with changes made in the Montana Legislature as a result of the passage of Senate Bills 286 and 92. These statutory changes are codified at Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 82–4–222, 82–4–226, 82–4–237, and 82–4–253. Additionally, Montana is proposing to implement rule changes at ARM 17.24 subchapter 10 regarding a modified coal prospecting permitting process. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana program.
If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).
When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes a priority that the Department of Education (Department) may use for any appropriate discretionary grant program in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and future years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on expanding the number of Department programs and projects that support activities in designated Promise Zones.
This action will permit all offices in the Department to use this priority, as appropriate, in any discretionary grant competition.
We must receive your comments on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jane Hodgdon. Telephone: 202–453–6620. Or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 3474.
PROPOSED PRIORITY:
The Secretary proposes a priority that the Department may use, as appropriate, for discretionary grant competitions in FY 2014 and future years. This priority will allow the Department and, by extension, program participants to focus limited Federal resources in designated Promise Zones. The Secretary recognizes that this priority will not be appropriate for all discretionary grant programs.
A child's zip code should never determine his or her destiny; but today, the neighborhood a child grows up in affects his or her odds of graduating from high school, health outcomes, and lifetime economic opportunities. Collaborative efforts among private businesses and Federal, State, and local officials; faith-based and non-profit organizations; and families, children, and students can help change these odds and ensure that all children have the opportunity to earn a decent living when they reach adulthood.
Since 2009, the President has provided tools to combat poverty, investing more than $350 million in 100 of the Nation's persistent pockets of poverty. Building on those efforts, the President has announced an initiative to designate, over the next 4 years, 20 high-poverty communities as “Promise Zones” where the Federal government will partner with, and invest in,
Promise Zones will align the work of multiple Federal programs in high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities that have both substantial needs and a strong, evidence-based plan to address them. The five primary goals of Promise Zones are creating jobs, increasing economic activity, improving educational opportunities, reducing violent crime, and leveraging private investment. The initiative builds on lessons learned from existing place-based programs, such as the Department's Promise Neighborhoods program.
In order to be designated as a Promise Zone, communities must demonstrate the strength and effectiveness of their local commitment through a competitive, transparent process managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Designated Promise Zones must identify a set of outcomes they will pursue to revitalize their communities, develop a strategy to achieve and sustain those outcomes, and realign local, State, Federal and, as applicable, private resources accordingly. The Federal government will partner with the Promise Zones to help them access the resources and expertise they need, including the resources from the President's signature revitalization initiatives to ensure that Federal programs and resources support the efforts to transform these communities. Specifically, Promise Zones will: Receive Promise Zones tax incentives, if enacted by Congress, to stimulate hiring and business investment; benefit from an intensive Federal partnership through collaboration with Federal staff to provide specialized technical assistance; and have increased access to additional investments that further the goals of job creation, additional private investments, increased economic activity, improved educational opportunity, and reduction in violent crime.
For calendar year 2013, only communities that have previously been granted funds under one of a related set of Federal programs (Choice Neighborhoods, Promise Neighborhoods, Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation grants, Stronger Economies Together, Rural Jobs Accelerator, and Sustainable Housing and Communities) will be eligible to apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for designation as Promise Zones. Each of these programs is nationally competitive, and participation indicates a level of capacity among local institutions that promotes the success of Promise Zones.
In calendar year 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is planning to propose for public comment eligibility requirements and selection criteria for future Promise Zones competitions. (For additional information about eligibility for a Promise Zone designation, draft selection criteria for 2013, and the selection process, please visit the Promise Zones Web page:
To ensure that the Department's discretionary grant programs can provide, where appropriate, the increased access to additional investments for Promise Zones, the Secretary proposes a priority for projects that will serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.
Projects that are designed to serve and coordinate with a federally designated Promise Zone.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are proposing this priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Departments believe that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this proposed regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
You may also access document of the Department published in the
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
On September 26, 2013, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), effective January 2014. This proposed rule contains the revisions to
We must receive comments on or before November 25, 2013.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service®, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC, 20260–5015. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor N, Washington DC by appointment only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling 1–202–268–2906 in advance. Faxed comments will not be accepted.
Bill Chatfield at 202–268–7278, Lizbeth Dobbins at 202–268–3789, or Steve Monteith at 202–268–6983.
Proposed prices will be available under Docket No. R2013–10 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at
The Postal Service's proposed rule includes new pricing eligibility for retail and commercial nonpresorted First-Class Mail® letters, several mail classification changes, and some condensing of current standards for Periodicals publications.
The Postal Service proposes to add a new single-piece commercial nonpresorted First-Class Mail letter price category to be called
The Postal Service proposes to change the current price structure for residual First-Class Mail letters. Residuals from uniform 1-ounce presort letter mailings will pay the 1-ounce Metered letter price. Residuals from uniform 2-ounce presort letter mailings will pay the 2-ounce Metered letter price Residuals from mixed mailings of 1-ounce and 2-
Although not making any changes to mailing standards with this filing, the Postal Service will evaluate the impact of certain types of paper and other physical characteristics for flat mail machinability and may later propose related changes in standards for automation flats.
We propose to disallow the use of detached address labels (DALs) with all Standard Mail flats mailed with simplified addresses (EDDM®). Therefore, all EDDM flats (entered at BMEUs or Retail) would have to bear simplified addresses directly on the flats.
The Postal Service initially introduced optional FSS preparation standards in the August 23, 2010
In the August 23, 2010 final rule, the Postal Service also provided advance notice that FSS-based mail preparation requirements would become mandatory at some point in the future. The Postal Service now proposes to require bundle and pallet preparation of flat-size Standard Mail, Periodicals and Bound Printed Matter mailpieces prepared for delivery within the ZIP Codes
With this revision, mailers would be required to place mailings of presorted and basic carrier route Standard Mail flats, and Periodicals and Bound Printed Matter presorted and carrier route flats meeting the deflection standards and the physical standards in DMM 301.3.2, and combined mailings of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats prepared under DMM 705.15 into combined 5-digit FSS scheme pools when addressed for delivery to any FSS 5-digit scheme combination per labeling list L006. Optionally, mailers may include nonmachinable Periodicals flats no more than 1-inch thick if they meet the standards in 705.14.
Mailers would place qualifying mailpieces from all price categories into a separate pool for each individual 5-digit FSS-scheme combination. Mailings that include 10 or more pieces of Standard Mail flats, 6 or more pieces of Periodicals flats or 10 or more pieces (or 10 or more pounds) of Bound Printed Matter flats to a FSS scheme must include FSS scheme bundles for that 5-digit FSS scheme. Mailers may optionally prepare scheme pools with less than 10 pieces of Standard Mail flats, 6 pieces of Periodical flats, or 10 pieces (or 10 pounds) of Bound Printed Matter flats and may prepare a FSS scheme bundle if they have a minimum of 3 inches of mail. Mailings of Bound Printed Matter flats not meeting the eligibility standards for presort or carrier route pricing may also be included in FSS preparation, but would not be eligible for presorted or carrier route prices. All pieces for each combined mailpiece pool must be placed in uniform bundles of between 3 inches and 6.5 inches, except for one overflow bundle that may be under the minimum height. Bundles must be otherwise prepared in accordance with the other conditions in DMM 705.14.0.
Bundles must be identified as 5-digit scheme presort, either with an optional endorsement line (OEL) under 708.7.0 or with a “red Label 5 SCH” barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label. However, mailpieces entered under a combined mailing of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats will continue to require a unique OEL on each piece as described in DMM exhibit 708.7.1.1. Mailers are reminded that every mailpiece prepared under these standards must still include class and price markings as described in DMM 302.3.0 applicable to the price paid, in addition to the FSS bundle identification.
Pallets prepared to the FSS sort plan level (all for the same 5-digit FSS-scheme ZIP Code combination) would continue to be required at 250 pounds, and optional below 250 pounds. However, FSS facility sort (all 5-digit FSS-scheme ZIP Code combinations processed within the same facility) pallets would be optional at any level. Pallets would be required to bear a pallet placard with an Intelligent Mail container barcode. Mailers without the capacity to palletize could request an exception to these palletization requirements from the local plant manager.
Mailpieces that meet the current eligibility standards for basic carrier route prices would be included in FSS preparation requirement. Saturation price Standard Mail and Periodicals flats are not eligible for this preparation. Mailers may optionally include pieces eligible for high density and high density plus prices into FSS preparation, but their inclusion will not be required. Only saturation, high density, and high density plus mailpieces would be eligible for destination delivery unit (DDU) entry within FSS zones. The sequencing of mailpieces within bundles is not required or recommended when preparing FSS bundles.
The Postal Service is adding a new destination FSS (DFSS) price for FSS sort plan containers entered at the correct FSS facility. Initially only FSS sort plan containers would be eligible for these destination-entry prices. The Postal Service is also investigating the feasibility of allowing FSS facility containers to be entered at FSS facilities that are co-located with bundle sortation capability, but no final decision has been made. DFSS entry piece pricing would be available for Standard Mail flats qualifying for carrier route and 5-digit piece prices.
Standard Mail flats properly included in a FSS scheme pool, but qualifying for 3-digit, ADC or mixed ADC prices, would claim 3-digit prices. However, these pieces would not be eligible for DFSS prices when placed on a FSS scheme pallet entered at a DFSS. These pieces would be eligible for DSCF entry prices.
FSS preparation would be optional for Periodicals flats mailed at In-County prices and Periodicals mailings of five thousand pieces or less mailed at Outside-County prices. The 5-digit Outside-County bundle charge would continue to be assessed on bundles of Outside-County Periodicals prepared in accordance with these standards, even
Bound Printed Matter (BPM) flats prepared under these standards placed on FSS scheme pallets, sacks or trays, and entered at a FSS facility would be eligible for DSCF prices. DFSS entry prices would not be available for BPM flats at this time.
Additionally, the Postal Service is currently investigating the operational feasibility of allowing flats exceeding 20 ounces to be included in FSS preparation, and will advise the mailing industry of its findings.
To accommodate changes in facility functions, the Postal Service has been allowing destination sectional center (DSCF) facility pricing at some former SCFs. As advance notice, effective January 2015, to qualify for DSCF pricing, mailers would be required to enter mail at an actual SCF.
We add a few editorial revisions to standards for Periodicals in DMM 707.4.0, 707.6.0, 707.7.0, 707.9.0, and 707.18.0 to simplify the text. We include these revisions in this proposal to invite any comments and ensure that we are not removing any text needed by customers or employees.
We propose to add a restriction on all tray and sack labels to formalize what has been a practical restriction: that all tray and sack labels be non-adhesive. This will enable quicker turnaround of empty sacks and trays for customer use.
The Postal Service is proposing to require all shipments containing mailable live animals to be assessed a Live Animal Transportation Fee. In 2006, as a result of an assessment charged by commercial airlines, the Postal Service first provided notice to mailers of a surcharge for live shipments of $0.20 per pound for day-old poultry in the mail.
To ensure the safety of the animals during mail processing and transportation, the Postal Service has historically provided extra care in handling live animals as a course of action, regardless of the class of mail or the extra service being purchased. This has resulted in additional expense incurred by the Postal Service to isolate and protect live shipments.
Therefore, the Postal Service is proposing to adopt a per pound Live Animal Transportation Fee applicable to all shipments containing live animals.
This proposed Live Animal Transportation Fee is subject to regulatory review by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Therefore, the Postal Service would proceed with the implementation of the pricing component of this rule following filing with the PRC and their subsequent review and input. The Postal Service expects that the Live Animal Transportation Fee will help offset costs for additional handling and care given to shipments of live animals.
To provide customers with more flexibility to ship their packages using the Postal Service, we propose reducing the minimum criteria of 200 pieces or 50 pounds, when paying postage by permit imprint, to 50 pieces or 50 pounds for manifest mailers using a manifest mailing system (MMS) and eVS® for any single-piece parcel mailings. The Postal Service would allow a combination of any domestic single-piece priced (nonpresorted) parcels to meet the new minimum criteria using one or more of the following: Priority Mail Express
The Postal Service proposes to remove the current option for senders of nursery stock shipped Collect on Delivery (COD) to include special instructions for undeliverable shipments to be auctioned off to the highest bidder and the proceeds remitted to the sender. Effective July 28, 2013, the holding period for COD articles was reduced from 30 days to 10 days, resulting in the USPS being able to return the nursery stock in less time than we previously would hold it for delivery. Additionally, this option has not been commonly used and has been difficult to administer. Therefore, the special instructions for auctions are no longer needed.
The Postal Service also proposes to expand the standards for COD mail to allow Hold for Pick Up service to be added when COD mail is sent as Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service, or Parcel Select Nonpresort.
The Postal Service will clarify the standards for use of an addressee's signature hand stamp for Priority Mail Express or accountable mail items. Specifically, we clarify that the use of a hand stamp is not exclusive to the Form 3849. Once approved by the Postmaster, a hand stamp may be used for Priority Mail Express and other accountable mail, including a Return Receipt (Form 3811) purchased with the applicable extra service.
Although these revisions will not be published in the DMM until January 26, 2014, mailers may begin using addressee's signature hand stamps under the revised mailing standards upon publication of the final rule.
The Postal Service is continuing its efforts to simplify the claims process and reduce the adjudication period when customers file indemnity claims. In addition to further enhancements to our online claims system, the Postal Service proposes to streamline the filing periods and manual processes associated with claims processing for improved efficiency. The claims filing periods for indemnity claims would be 60 days from the date of mailing and subsequently, the claims appeals timeline would be reduced from 60 days to 30 days from the date of the original decision.
Customers will continue to file indemnity claims online or, when no internet access is available to the customer, claims may be filed by mail directly to the Accounting Service Center. A toll-free number is being made available to obtain Form 1000 for customers filing by mail. The local Post Office
Clarity is also proposed to the DMM language for payable claims for coins, and other collectibles to require a sales receipt, invoice or bill of sale, or statement of value from a reputable
Additionally, the Postal Service plans to discontinue offering Return Receipt for Merchandise service in July 2014, because Signature Confirmation provides the same or equivalent service for a lower price.
The Postal Service will offer numerous mailing promotions in calendar year 2014, and will share the details of these promotions on the RIBBS Web site soon.
Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 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.
See Notice 123—Price List. The single-piece prices for First-Class Mail are applied as follows:
a. The card price applies to a card meeting the standards in 101.6.3.
b. The letter price applies to letter-size pieces that meet the standards in 101.1.1 and weigh 3.5 ounces or less, and that are not eligible for and claimed at the card price. There are separate prices for stamped letters, and for letters with postage affixed (other than regular stamps) or imprinted by the mailer (
Postage for single-piece First-Class Mail must be paid with affixed postage stamps (604.1.0), postage evidencing system postage (604.4.0) or permit imprint (604.5.0) as specified in 1.0. When mailers affix postage (other than regular stamps) or use permit imprint on letters, such pieces are eligible for the
Commercial First-Class Mail Presorted letters are charged at one price for the first 2 ounces, with separate prices for pieces over 2 ounces up to 3 ounces and for pieces over 3 ounces up to 3.5 ounces. Any fraction of an ounce is considered a whole ounce. The pricing per ounce is similar for automation First-Class Mail letters, with pricing per sortation level. Single-piece price letters that are residual pieces from either a Presorted or automation mailing are charged the residual single-piece price for letters up to 2 ounces when the mailing contains both 1-ounce and 2-ounce pieces and pieces are presented together, and the applicable
Postage for Presorted or automation First-Class Mail letters must be paid with affixed postage or permit imprint as specified in 2.0. Residual letters (from presorted or automation mailings) with such postage may be eligible for the
First-Class Mail presorted and automation postage must be paid with postage evidencing system indicia, permit imprints, or precanceled stamps. All pieces in a mailing must be paid with the same method unless otherwise permitted by standard or Business Mailer Support authorization. Permit imprints may be used for mailings of nonidentical-weight pieces only if authorized by Business Mailer Support.
* * * The following standards apply:
a. The mailer must prepare the single-piece price pieces in separate trays from the automation and presort pieces. Mailers must label the trays under 708.6.0 using CIN code 260 on trays of single-piece letters. * * *
2. Line 2: Use the human-readable content line corresponding to content identifier number 260 (see Exhibit 708.6.2.4).
All pieces in a Regular Standard Mail or Nonprofit Standard Mail Presorted price mailing must:
d. Be marked, sorted and documented as specified in 345 or 705.14.0.
The 5-digit price applies to flat-size pieces:
a. In a 5-digit/scheme bundle of 10 or more pieces, or 15 or more pieces, as applicable; properly placed in a 5-digit/scheme sack containing at least 125 pieces or 15 pounds of pieces; or pieces included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool prepared under 705.14.
The 3-digit price applies to flat-size pieces:
c. That are residual pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices, but properly included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool prepared under 705.14.
All pieces in an Enhanced Carrier Route or Nonprofit Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail mailing must:
c. Be sorted to carrier routes, marked, and documented under 345.6.0 or 705.8.0; or prepared under 705.14.0.
Basic prices apply to each piece in a carrier route bundle of 10 or more pieces that is:
a. Palletized under 705.8.0, 705.10.0, 705.12.0, or 705.13.0.
e. Properly prepared to a FSS 5-digit scheme pool prepared under 705.14.
All pieces mailed at high density prices must:
b. * * * Multiple pieces per delivery address can count toward the density standards, except for pieces with simplified addresses as allowed under 602.3.0.
All pieces in a Regular Standard Mail or Nonprofit Standard Mail automation mailing must:
f. Be marked, sorted and documented under 345.7.0 and 705.8.0 through 705.13.0; or prepared under 705.14.0.
Automation prices apply to each piece properly sorted into qualifying groups:
a. The 5-digit price applies to flat-size pieces in a 5-digit/scheme bundle of 10 or more pieces, or 15 or more pieces, as applicable; or 10 or more pieces prepared to a FSS 5-digit scheme pool under 705.14.
b. The 3-digit price applies to flat-size pieces in a 3-digit/scheme bundle of 10 or more pieces. It also applies to residual pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices but included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool under 705.14.
Except for Standard Mail flats mailed at saturation, High Density or High-Density Plus prices, all Standard Mail flats destinating to FSS zones in accordance with labeling list L006 must be prepared under 705.14.0. Flats qualifying for High Density and High-Density Plus prices also may be included in FSS 5-digit scheme pools.
Pieces in a mailing that meets the standards in 2.0 and 4.0 are eligible for the DSCF price, as follows:
c. DSCF prices apply to residual pieces eligible for 3-digit prices that are properly placed on a FSS scheme pallet, and pieces from all eligible price categories properly placed in a FSS scheme sack or tray, when deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and labeled to a FSS sort plan processed by that facility or to a 5-digit destination processed by that facility under labeling list L006. These pieces must include a full delivery address and meet the physical standards for FSS-machinability in 705.14.0.
Destination Flat Sequencing System Facility (DFSS) refers to the facilities listed in L006, Column C.
DFSS prices apply to pieces deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and correctly placed on a pallet labeled to a FSS sort plan processed by that facility or to a 5-digit destination processed by that facility under labeling list L006. These pieces must include a full delivery address and meet the physical standards for FSS machinability in 705.14.0.
BPM flats claiming presort or carrier route prices, meeting the standards in
Bound Printed Matter pieces in a mailing meeting the standards in 3.0 are eligible for the DSCF price when they meet all of the following additional conditions:
b. are deposited at:
2. a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and correctly placed in a flat tray, sack, or on a pallet, labeled to a FSS sort plan processed by that facility or to a 5-digit destination processed by that facility under labeling list L006. These pieces must include a full delivery address and meet the physical standards for FSS-machinability in 705.14.0.
* * * File an inquiry for Registered Mail with no declared value by completing a Form 1000, available online at
Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected (not to exceed $1,000.00) from the addressee (or addressee's agent). COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt and the USPS maintains a record of delivery (including the recipient's signature) for two years. The recipient may pay the COD amount due for a mailpiece (with one form of payment) by cash, or a personal check or money order made payable to the mailer. The USPS forwards the check or money order to the mailer. The Postal Service cannot intervene in disputes between mailers and recipients of COD mail after payment was returned to the mailer. Customers may obtain a delivery record by purchasing return receipt (5.0). Bulk proof of delivery service (6.0) is also available if purchasing electronic return receipt service at the time of mailing. A mailer must use a unique COD number for each article mailed.
COD service may be used for Priority Mail Express (next day and second day service only), Priority Mail (except Critical Mail), First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service, Standard Post, and Package Services or Parcel Select (except Parcel Select Lightweight) mailpieces if: * * *
COD service may be used with Hold For Pick Up service under 508.7, and may also be combined with the following services when the additional service fees are paid:
a. Restricted delivery.
b. Return receipt.
c. USPS Tracking (except with Priority Mail Express COD).
d. Registered Mail.
e. Signature Confirmation (except with Priority Mail Express COD).
f. Special handling.
* * * The label and form must be affixed according to 12.4.1
Any article sent COD also may be sent by Priority Mail Express (next day and second day) when a delivery signature is requested. The maximum amount collectible from the addressee and the indemnity for an individual article is limited to $1,000.00. Priority Mail Express postage and the COD fees must be paid. The label and form must be affixed according to 12.4.1.
The mailer of a COD article may use USPS Package Intercept service under 507.5.0 to redirect the article to a new addressee at a designated Post Office using Hold For Pickup service.
Mailers must complete barcoded Form 3816 (see Exhibit 12.3.1) or Form 3816–AS (see 12.3.2) and attach it above the delivery address and to the right of the return address, or to the left of the delivery address on parcels.
If authorized, a mailer may use a privately printed Form 3816–AS in a 3-ply or 5-ply format. If Form 3816–AS does not provide detachable second and third copies, use Form 3877 under 12.4.4. The privately printed form must be nearly identical in text, design, and color to postal Form 3816, with a COD article number that can be read by automated postal equipment and an Intelligent Mail package barcode (IMpb) prepared under 708.5.0. As stated in Publication 199, available at
A firm that mails nursery stock may use Form 3816–AS (see 12.3.2) and include instructions for disposing of shipments not delivered immediately under the following conditions:
a. The firm's instructions on the back of the delivery office part of the COD form
1. “If recipient refuses to pay charges for any reason, deliver at once without collecting the charges. If parcel is not deliverable or not claimed by the addressee after 10 days, destroy parcel. See remittance coupon for further instructions.”
2. “Return this coupon with money order. If parcel is delivered without collection of charges, or is destroyed after 10 days, check disposition and send coupon to sender in penalty envelope.”
Delivered to addressee without collecting charges.
Destroyed after 10 days.
COD articles are identified by a number on each section of the COD form. When COD is used with Priority Mail Express, Registered Mail, Hold For Pickup service or, a separate barcoded shipping label, the mailer must place both the label and the COD form on the front of the article. The Priority Mail Express article number or the Registered Mail number is used for delivery receipt and indemnity claims. When a separate Hold For Pickup or barcoded shipping label is used, the identifying tracking numbers on the label and the COD form must match.
The mailer must securely affix the COD form to each COD article. The form must show article number, names and addresses of mailer and recipient, amount due mailer, and amount of money order fee. This required information must be handwritten with ink, typewritten, or computer printed. The mailer may not stipulate “Cash Only” on the COD form. The USPS is not responsible for errors that a mailer makes in stating the charges to be collected.
* * * The return address on the COD form must be the same as the return address on the COD article, except that a mailer using a Form 3816–AS may print a different address on the remittance coupon where payments are to be sent.* * *
A mailer using Form 3816 receives a section of this form as a receipt. If three or more COD articles are presented for mailing at one time, the mailer may use Form 3877 (firm sheet) or privately printed firm sheets in conjunction with Form 3816. When a mailer uses a Form 3816–AS that does not provide detachable second and third copies, Form 3877 also must be used. Privately printed or computer-generated firm sheets that contain the same information as Form 3877 may be approved by the local postmaster or manager, business mail entry. Mailers may omit columns from Form 3877 that do not apply to COD mail. The mailer must submit firm sheets in duplicate and will receive one copy of the postmarked form as a mailing receipt (in lieu of Copy 3 of Form 3816 or Form 3816–AS) after the entries are verified by the accepting postal employee. The acceptance Post Office will retain the second copy. All entries on Form 3877 or privately-printed firm sheets must be made by typewriter, printed in ink, or computer-generated. Alterations must be initialed by the mailer and accepting employee. All unused portions of the addressee column must be obliterated with a diagonal line.
Delivery of COD mail is subject to 508.1.0 and 508.2.0. Except for Priority Mail Express COD, a postmaster may restrict delivery of COD mail if the amount to be collected makes the carrier a potential target for theft or if it is known that the addressee will be unavailable to receive the article at the time of delivery. If payment is by the recipient's check or a money order made payable to the mailer, the recipient must present adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, a money order fee is collected from the recipient in addition to the COD amount.
* * * The sender must sign a delivery receipt for returned Priority Mail Express, Registered Mail, COD articles, Adult Signature services, and mail insured for more than $200. Returned Priority Mail Express (when waiver of signature is requested by sender), Certified Mail, and mail with Signature Confirmation or return receipt for merchandise service may be returned to the sender without obtaining a signature when those mailpieces are properly returned as undeliverable.
A change-of-address order covers Certified Mail, COD, insured, Registered Mail, Signature Confirmation, Adult Signature services, and return receipt for merchandise mail unless the sender gives other instructions or the addressee moves outside the United States. This mail is treated as follows:
a. COD mail is not forwarded to overseas military Post Offices.
b. Ordinary and insured parcels marked on the envelope or wrapper with the mailer's instructions are treated following instructions, such as: “Do not forward or return. If not accepted within ___ days, treat as abandoned. Notify mailer of disposition.”
c. COD mail will be handled as requested when marked under 503.12.
The following conditions also apply to the delivery of Priority Mail Express and other accountable mail (Registered Mail, Certified Mail, insured for more than $200.00, COD, or Adult Signature services as well as mail with return receipt service, return receipt for merchandise service, or restricted delivery service:
a. The addressee (or addressee's representative) may obtain the sender's name and address and may look at the mailpiece while held by the USPS employee before accepting delivery and endorsing the delivery receipt.
c. Suitable identification may be required of the recipient before delivery of the mailpiece.
e. USPS responsibility ends when the mailpiece is delivered to the addressee (or another party, subject to 1.0).
g. A hand stamp approved by the postmaster may be used to provide the signature and name of the individual or organization receiving the mailpiece as follows:
1. The hand stamp imprint must fit within the Signature and Printed Name blocks on Form 3849, without overlapping into the delivery office information section or the Delivery Address block.
2. To obtain approval for a hand stamp, the company must submit a written statement to the postmaster that the person whose name appears on the stamp is authorized to accept accountable mail, accompanied by a sample of the authorized employee's signature. After approval, the documentation submitted is held by the postmaster and the stamped signature and name are acceptable only if a legible impression is provided within the Signature and Printed Name blocks on Form 3849.
3. For mail addressed only to a federal or state official, the stamp need show only the name and location of the accepting organization. In these cases, the stamp imprint must fit within the Printed Name and Delivery Address block of Form 3849 without overlapping into the Signature block or barcode sections.
Hold For Pickup service allows eligible mailpieces to be held at a designated Post Office for pick up by an addressee or designee. When the mailer has provided contact information to the destination Post Office, the customer is notified by email that a package is available for pickup. This service provides the shipper with the date and time of delivery to the addressee. If the item has not been picked up within 5 days, the Post Office will make a second attempt to notify the addressee. The item will be returned to the sender if not picked up within 15 days.
Hold For Pickup service is available with Priority Mail Express. It is also available with commercial mailings of Priority Mail (except Critical Mail), First-Class Package Service parcels, and Parcel Select Nonpresort parcels when:
a. Mailpieces bear the Hold For Pickup label (additional labeling standards under 503.12 apply when combined with COD service).
b. Mailpieces bear an Intelligent Mail package barcode meeting the standards in 708.5.0.
c. One of the extra services in 7.2.6 is combined with Hold For Pickup service.
Hold For Pickup service, except when used with Priority Mail Express, must be combined with one or more of the following:
e. Collect on Delivery (COD).
Except for Priority Mail Express Hold For Pickup presented at retail Post Office locations, mailers or their agents must prepare mailpieces bearing the “Hold For Pickup” label as follows:
a. Exchange electronic files with USPS through an approved file transfer protocol to notify the addressee when a parcel is available for pickup or to notify the mailer or agent that items are available to be picked up as “return to sender.”
c. In addition to the markings defined in 7.0, address labels on a Hold For Pickup mailpiece must contain the elements below:
7. The lower half of the address label must contain an Intelligent Mail package barcode meeting the standards in 708.5.0 or an integrated barcode as defined in Publication 199.
8. If combined with COD service, other information as required in 503.12.
In addition to the applicable postage and any extra services fees, a shipment containing any mailable live animal is charged a live animal transportation fee based upon the weight of the shipment. See Notice 123—Price List.
Regardless of destination, when U.S. postage is applied to a mailpiece, only a domestic return address is authorized, except when the addressee's permanent residence is outside the United States or its territories (e.g., a tourist who lives abroad and is shipping an item home from the United States). This exception is applicable for only incidental non-commercial use for single-piece price mailpieces.
Saturation mailings of unaddressed Periodicals or Standard Mail flats, except Standard Mail flats with simplified addresses (EDDM), may be mailed with detached address labels (DALs). For this standard, saturation mailing means a mailing sent to at least 75% of the total addresses on a carrier route or 90% of the residential addresses on a route, whichever is less. Saturation flats presented with DALs that are not automation-compatible and correctly barcoded do not qualify for saturation prices. Instead they may be entered at applicable basic carrier route prices. This standard (for automation-compatible barcoded DALs) does not apply to DALs with simplified addressing when correctly used with Periodicals flats.
The address for each item must be placed on a DAL, parallel to the longest dimension of the DAL, and may not appear on the item it accompanies. The DAL must contain the delivery address and a return address. In addition, if DALs accompany saturation mailings of Periodicals or Standard Mail flats, a correct Intelligent Mail barcode with an 11-digit routing code must be printed on each DAL except when using a simplified address for Periodicals flats as allowed by standards.
* * * In addition, these methods of postage payment apply:
b. Standard Mail flats (except EDDM flats) and parcels and Bound Printed Matter pieces must be paid by permit imprint, which must appear on each DAL.
Permit imprint mailings must contain at least 200 pieces or 50 pounds of mail, except:
g. A mailing containing 50 pieces or 50 pounds of nonpresorted single-piece domestic mail parcels submitted under the terms of an approved Manifest Mailing System (including eVS) agreement under 705.2.0. Mailers may include any combination of the following products under this provision: Priority Mail Express (eVS only), Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service parcels, First-Class Mail parcels, nonpresorted Bound Printed Matter parcels, Parcel Select Nonpresort parcels, and single-piece Media Mail and Library Mail parcels. Parcels in USPS-provided packaging, including Flat Rate Envelopes and Boxes, may be included.
A customer may file an indemnity claim for insured mail, COD items, Registered Mail with postal insurance, or Priority Mail Express. See Publication 122, available on www.usps.com, for additional information.
File claims as follows:
Indemnity claims should be filed online (preferred) at
Customers also may file a claim by completing a PS Form 1000,
If a claim is filed because some or all of the contents are missing or damaged, the addressee must retain the mailing container, including any damaged articles, all packaging, and any contents received. Upon written request by the USPS, the addressee must make this proof available to the local Post Office for inspection, retention, and disposition in accordance with the claims decision. Failure to do so will result in denial of the claim.
For a claim involving articles listed in 1.1, the customer must retain evidence showing that the particular service was purchased, until the claim is resolved. Examples of acceptable evidence are:
a. The original mailing receipt issued at the time of mailing (retail insured mail, Registered Mail, and COD receipts must contain a USPS postmark). For insured mail, a photocopy of the original mailing receipt is acceptable.
b. The outer packaging showing the names and addresses of the sender and
c. For Priority Mail Express items accepted under a Priority Mail Express Manifesting agreement in 705.2.0, a copy of the manifest page showing the Priority Mail Express label number for the item; the manifest summary page for the mailing date of the piece; a copy of Form 3152–E round-dated by the accepting Post Office; and a copy of the USPSCA monthly statement that lists the label number and postage for the mailpiece. If the customer purchased additional insurance, a copy of the round-stamped Form 3877 also must be submitted.
d. For insurance purchased online, a printed electronic online label record or a computer printout from the application used to print the label and purchase the insurance. The printout must identify the USPS Tracking number of the insured parcel, total postage paid, insurance fee paid, declared value, mailing date, origin ZIP Code, and delivery ZIP Code.
e. For insured mail or COD mail paid using MMS or eVS under 705.2, the mailer must use one of the following:
1. A Detail Record in their Shipping Services file version 1.6 or higher, with recipient name and address information for the accountable extra services pieces in the mailing.
2. A printout of the part of Form 3877 that identifies the parcel by article number, the package identification code (PIC) of the insured or COD parcel, total postage paid, fee paid, declared insured value, amount due sender if COD, mailing date, origin ZIP Code, and delivery ZIP Code reported in the parcel record in the manifest file.
Either the mailer or the addressee must submit acceptable proof to establish the cost or value of the article at the time it was mailed. Proof of value should be submitted electronically or attached to the claim form under 1.6; otherwise, the claim cannot be processed. Other proof may be requested to help determine an accurate value. Examples are:
b. For items valued up to $50, the customer's statement describing the lost or damaged article and including the date and place of purchase, the amount paid, and whether the item was new or used (if a receipt or invoice is not available).
g. A copy of a credit card statement or other documentation indicating the amount paid.
Insurance for loss or damage to insured, COD, or Registered Mail within the amount covered by the fee paid or the indemnity limits for Priority Mail Express (under 4.2) is payable for the following:
g. For stamps and coins of philatelic or numismatic value; the fair market value is determined by a recognized stamp or coin dealer or current coin and stamp collectors' newsletters and trade papers. The date of the fair market value determination must be current and prior to the mailing date.
p. For firearms mailed by licensed firearm dealers under 601.12, a Form 1508 must be submitted with the claim.
q. For collectible items, a sales receipt, invoice or bill of sale, or statement of value from a reputable dealer must be provided as described in 3.2.a.
In addition to the payable claims in 4.1, the following are payable for Priority Mail Express mailpieces:
a. Nonnegotiable documents are insured against loss, damage, or loss of some contents while in transit. Coverage is limited to $100 per mailpiece, subject to a maximum limit per occurrence as provided in 4.2a4. Claims for document reconstruction insurance must be supported by a statement of expense incurred in reconstruction. Nonnegotiable documents include audit and business records, commercial papers, and other written instruments that cannot be negotiable or cannot be converted into cash without forgery. Articles such as artwork, collector or antique items, books, pamphlets, readers' proofs, repro proofs, separation negatives, engineering drawings, blueprints, circulars, advertisements, film, negatives, and photographs are considered merchandise, not documents. Indemnity for document reconstruction is paid as follows:
Indemnity is not paid for insured mail, Registered Mail, COD, or Priority Mail Express in these situations:
f. Loss resulting from delay of the mail, except under 4.2a2 and 4.3ad below.
k. Death of honeybees, crickets, and harmless live animals not the fault of the USPS (mailability is subject to 601.9.0).
r. Consequential loss of Priority Mail Express, except under 4.2a3 and 4.3ad.
aa. Lottery tickets, sweepstakes tickets, contest entries, gift cards and similar items.
A customer may appeal a claim decision within 30 days from the date of the original decision at
If Accounting Services sustains the denial of a claim, the customer may submit an additional appeal within 30 days for final review and decision to the Consumer Advocate (see 608.8.0 for address).
These standards apply to mail on pallets:
h. Heavier, fuller trays must be placed at the bottom of the load, unless excepted by other standards (such as 245.7.7) that may require placement on the top of the pallet.
Presorted and basic carrier route Standard Mail flats, and all Bound Printed Matter (BPM) presorted and carrier route flats and Periodicals flats meeting the standards in 301.3.2, must be consolidated into 5-digit FSS scheme bundles and placed on pallets, in sacks, or in approved alternate containers, for 5-digit FSS scheme ZIP Code combinations within the same facility. Mailings that include 10 or more pieces of Standard Mail flats, 6 or more pieces of Periodicals flats or 10 or more pieces (or 10 or more pounds) of BPM flats to a FSS scheme, must include FSS scheme bundles for that 5-digit FSS scheme. Mailers may optionally prepare scheme pools with less than those minimums and may prepare a FSS scheme bundle if there is a minimum of 3 inches per bundle. Mailings of nonpresorted BPM flats may be included in FSS preparation, but will not be eligible for presorted or carrier route prices. When possible, the Postal Service also recommends the use of flat trays in lieu of sacks for FSS bundles. Bundles of flats prepared to FSS zones may also be combined with flats not intended for FSS processing when prepared to less finely presorted containers in accordance with these standards and the standards in 8.0. Mailers must place qualifying mailpieces from all price categories into a separate combined pool for each individual 5-digit FSS-scheme combination, and then prepare bundles of uniform size from those pieces. Mailpieces that meet the eligibility standards for 5-digit prices, basic and high density carrier route prices, or BPM presort or carrier route prices will continue to be eligible for these prices when prepared in accordance with the FSS preparation standards. Saturation price Standard Mail and Periodicals flats are not eligible for preparation under this option. High Density and High-Density Plus Standard Mail flats that meet the physical requirements in 301.3 may be included when prepared in accordance with these standards. Mailpieces and bundles must also be prepared as follows:
a. Bundles for all FSS sort plans must be identified as a 5-digit scheme presort with an optional endorsement line under 708.7.0; or when authorized, using a red Label 5 SCH barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label.
b. It is recommended that all Standard Mail and Periodicals pieces placed into an FSS pool be barcoded, and bear an accurate delivery point Intelligent Mail barcode with an accurate 11-digit routing code.
j. A FSS sort plan pallet, or alternate approved container, must be made when 250 pounds or more of bundles are available for an individual FSS 5-digit scheme. Bundles remaining after palletization may be placed in sacks (or flat trays if approved).
Except for Periodicals flats mailed at In-County prices, Periodicals flats mailings of 5,000 pieces or less mailed at Outside-County prices, or otherwise excepted Periodicals flats mailings, all Periodicals flats meeting the standards in 301.3.2 (nonmachinable flats up to 1-inch thick may be included if they meet the standards in 705.14) and destinating to FSS zones as shown in L006, must be prepared according to these standards. Mailings of In-County Periodicals flats and Outside-County Periodicals flats mailings of 5,000 pieces or less also may be prepared according to these standards. Periodicals are subject to the following:
a. Pricing eligibility is based on 707.11.0 through 707.14.0, except that the 5-digit Outside-County bundle charge will be assessed to bundles of Outside-County Periodicals prepared in accordance with these standards, including bundles of flats claimed at the carrier route piece price. All Periodicals flats prepared under these standards will be assessed the 3-digit bundle price without regard to the piece prices claimed. FSS bundles placed on FSS scheme or FSS facility pallets, sacks or trays will claim the 3-digit bundle price.
b. FSS 5-digit scheme pallets will be assessed the Outside-County container charge for the 3-digit level pallet, except that there is no container charge for FSS 5-digit scheme pallets entered at a DFSS facility. FSS facility sort level pallets will be charged a container price for the SCF pallet. FSS scheme sacks or trays will continue to be assessed the 3-digit price. Sacks and trays entered at a DFSS will claim the DSCF entry price.
c. The Outside-County pound price will be the same as the DSCF price. The Inside-County price will claim prices for the “none” entry level.
e. Mailers must combine all 5-digit, carrier route, and 5-digit scheme eligible flat-size mailpieces into a combined mailpiece pool for each FSS 5-digit scheme combination according to L006.
f. Each bundle must be identified with a “SCH 5–DIGIT FSS” optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1
g. All pooled Periodicals mailpieces prepared on pallets to a single presort destination must be prepared in uniform size bundles, between 3 inches and 6.5 inches in height and secured under 601.2.0, except that one overflow bundle per mailpiece pool may be under the minimum size.
* * * Preparation sequence and labeling:
b.
* * * Preparation and labeling:
b.
* * * Standard Mail flats are subject to the following:
c. Mailers must combine all 5-digit, basic carrier route, and 5-digit scheme eligible flat-size mailpieces into a combined mailpiece pool for each FSS 5-digit scheme combination according to L006.
d. Each bundle must be identified with a “SCH 5–DIGIT FSS” optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1
* * * Preparation sequence and labeling:
a.
b.
* * * Preparation and labeling:
b.
Bound Printed Matter (BPM) flats eligible for, and paid at, presorted prices or carrier route prices, and that meet the standards in 301.3.2, must be combined in 5-digit FSS scheme bundles and placed on pallets, or in flat trays, sacks or approved alternate containers, for delivery to ZIP Codes having FSS processing capability, as shown in L006. BPM flats are subject to the following:
c. Mailers must combine all eligible flat-size mailpieces into a combined mailpiece pool for each FSS 5-digit scheme combination according to L006.
d. Each bundle must be identified with a “SCH 5–DIGIT FSS” optional endorsement line in accordance with Exhibit 708.7.1.1
* * * Preparation sequence and labeling:
b.
* * * Preparation and labeling:
b.
Mailers authorized to combine mailings of Standard Mail flats and Periodicals flats must prepare these mailings under 14.0, when the mailing includes pieces destinating within one or more of the FSS zones in L006. Mailpieces eligible for High Density and High-Density Plus prices are not required to, but may be, prepared under the standards in 14.0. The following applies:
Regular issues must be published according to the publication's stated frequency. Issues may include annual reports, directories, buyers' guides, lists, and similar material if these issues bear the publication title and are included in the regular subscription price, if any.
General publications must meet these circulation standards:
b. Records for subscriptions to a publication must be kept so that subscriptions to each publication can be verified.
c. Persons whose subscriptions are obtained at a nominal price and those whose copies bear an alternative address must not be included in the legitimate list of subscribers. Such copies must be treated as nonsubscriber copies.
d. Subscriptions may be paid for with dues or contributions, if the amount paid for the subscription is stated. The USPS may require evidence of compliance; see 5.1.2 for more information.
e. A subscription must be separated from all other business transactions to be evident as an independent act. Publishers must be able to show that subscriptions are voluntary and that the subscription price is paid or promised.
f. At least 50% of a publication's distribution must be to persons who have paid above a nominal price. (For inclusion of electronic copies, see 6.5). Nominal price subscriptions include those sold at a price so low that it cannot be considered a material consideration; or at a reduction to the subscriber (under a premium offer or any other arrangement) of more than 70% of the basic annual subscription price. The value of a premium is its actual cost to the publisher, its recognized retail value, or its represented value, whichever is highest.
g. Publications primarily designed for free circulation or circulation at
Requester publications must meet these circulation standards:
b. Subscription copies of the publications that are paid for or promised to be paid for, including those at or below a nominal price, may be included in the 50% request requirement. (For inclusion of electronic copies, see 6.5.)
d. Records of requests for a publication must be kept so that subscriptions or requests for each publication can be verified.
e. Requests that are more than 3 years old are not valid requests. Copies addressed using an alternative address format are not considered requested copies.
f. For a requester publication issued by a membership organization, the organization may adopt a resolution that each member receives a copy of each issue. Records must be kept to show that the publication is sent to members. Form 3500 must be accompanied by a copy of the resolution and the written assurance that the required records are kept.
The term
Unsold copies returned to the publishers or sent to other news agents or sent to persons not having subscriptions with news agents, are subject to the Outside-County Periodicals prices.
Sample copies are nonsubscriber or nonrequester copies and may be mailed at prices according to standards in 7.0 and 10.0.
Copies addressed with simplified addresses under 602.3.2 may be mailed only to nonsubscribers or nonrequesters. If a subscriber or requester receives a simplified address copy in addition to the subscriber or requester copy, the additional copy is considered a nonsubscriber or nonrequester copy.
Copies sent to persons whose subscriptions were paid by other individuals as gifts are considered subscriber copies. Subscriptions paid by advertisers or other persons promoting their own interests, and subscriptions given free by the publisher, are
A small part of the distribution list may contain publishers to whom one copy each is sent in exchange for a copy of the recipients' publications. These exchange copies are considered subscriber or requester copies.
All complimentary copies are considered nonsubscriber or nonrequester copies.
One complete copy of each issue may be mailed to each advertiser (or agent) in the issue to prove that the advertisements are printed. These copies are considered subscriber or requester copies. Any additional copies sent to an advertiser (or agent) are considered nonsubscriber or nonrequester copies.
Except under 9.1.2, the publisher must file an application for reentry on Form 3510 to the original entry postmaster to change the title, frequency of issue; or to change location of the known office of publication of an authorized Periodicals publication by submitting Form 3510 to the postmaster whose service area oversees the new location.
Publishers changing the title or frequency of a publication must file Form 3510 by the date on which copies are to be issued with the new title or on the new frequency.
The correct (nonrefundable) fee must accompany an application (Form 3510) for reentry. No additional fee is required when a revised Form 3500 is required as part of a reentry application.
A publisher may file one Form 3510 and pay one fee to request multiple reentry actions under 9.1 if all documentation is submitted with the Form 3510 under 9.1.3; and the effective dates for the reentry actions do not cover more than 30 calendar days. The publisher must submit a separate Form 3510 (and pay the fee) for each reentry action that cannot meet these conditions.
A publisher must submit a separate Form 3510 (and pay the fee) for each
To change the category under which a publication is authorized Periodicals mailing privileges, the publisher must file a revised Form 3500 and an application for reentry on Form 3510 with the original entry postmaster and pay the applicable fee. See 9.1.2 for when a reentry application may not be required.
While an application for reentry is pending, copies of an authorized Periodicals publication are accepted for mailing at the Periodicals prices, subject to 9.3.5.
The publisher must be able to show (via circulation and other records) to USPS satisfaction that the reentered publication still meets all Periodicals standards. Failure to provide this evidence is sufficient grounds to deny the reentry request.
An entry office may not be used before authorization by the USPS. A publisher may not pay postage at another price to deposit copies at an unauthorized entry office. Subject to the restrictions in 9.1, the effective date of a reentry authorization is the application date or the eligibility date (if the publication became eligible after the application date). The requested date for a change in original entry office may be deferred until sufficient transportation or other resources are in place. If deferral is due to USPS transportation contract limitations, the publisher's requested date may be approved with the publisher's agreement to reimburse the USPS for costs caused by modifying contracted transportation.
If the PCSC manager denies an application, a written notice of the reasons is provided to the publisher. The denial takes effect 15 days from the publisher's receipt of the notice, unless the publisher files an appeal under 9.3.6 within that time. Alternatively, the publisher may return to the publication status before the application for reentry was submitted.
5-digit prices apply to:
c. Qualifying flats included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool under 705.14.
3-digit prices apply to:
c. Flat-size pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices, but properly included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool prepared under 705.14.
The High Density or saturation prices apply to each walk-sequenced piece in a carrier route mailing, eligible under 13.2.1 and prepared under 705.8.0, 23.0, or (nonletter-size mail only) 705.10.0, 705.12.0, or 705.13.0, that also meets the corresponding addressing and density standards in 13.3.4. High density and saturation price mailings must be prepared in carrier walk sequence according to schemes prescribed by the USPS (see 23.8). Flats qualifying for High Density or High-Density Plus prices by meeting the density standards may be included in FSS 5-digit scheme pools under 705.14.
5-digit automation prices apply to:
c. Qualifying flats included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool under 705.14.
3-digit automation prices apply to:
c. Flat-size pieces not qualifying for carrier route or 5-digit prices, but properly included in a FSS 5-digit scheme pool prepared under 705.14.
“Presort” is the process by which a mailer prepares mail so that it is sorted to at least the finest extent required by the standards.
“Mailings” are defined as:
a. A mailing is a group of pieces within the same class of mail and the same processing category that are sorted together and presented under a minimum volume mailing requirement. Specific standards may define whether separate mailings may be combined, palletized, reported, or deposited together.
Except for Periodicals flats mailed at In-County prices, Periodicals flats mailings of 5,000 pieces or less mailed at Outside-County prices, Periodicals flats mailed at saturation, High Density or High-Density Plus prices, or otherwise excepted Periodicals flats mailings, all Periodicals flats (including nonmachinable flats up to 1-inch thick may be included if they meet the standards in 705.14) destinating to FSS zones as shown in L006, must be prepared under 705.14. Mailings of in-county Periodicals flats, outside-county Periodicals flats mailings of 5,000 pieces or less, and Periodicals qualifying for
Determine price eligibility as follows:
For this standard, destination Flat Sequencing System Facility (DFSS) refers to the facilities listed in L006, Column C.
DFSS prices apply to pieces deposited at a USPS-designated FSS processing facility and correctly placed in a flat tray, sack, or on a pallet, labeled to a FSS sort plan or labeled to a 5-digit destination processed by that facility, under labeling list L006. These pieces must include a full delivery address and meet the physical standards for FSS-machinability in 705.14.0.
Exhibit 6.2.1 shows the types of mail requiring barcoded tray or sack labels. Barcoded labels must meet these general standards:
b. Mailer-produced barcoded labels must meet the standards in 6.0, and must be non-adhesive.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions of the Texas State Implementation Plan submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, or Commission) on July 31, 2002; September 4, 2002; and March 1, 2004. These revisions require that all grandfathered facilities obtain specific permits which include emission control methods to achieve mandated emission reductions, as required, or shutdown; and require that emissions from dockside vessels which result from operations at grandfathered land-based facilities be included in specific permits. The revisions also outline additional permitting procedures for certain grandfathered pipeline equipment located in an ozone nonattainment area.
These permitting requirements and emissions reductions will contribute to achieving attainment and help ensure attainment and continued maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone in the State of Texas. EPA is proposing the revisions under section 110, part C, and part D of the Act, and EPA's regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0202, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email: Mr. Rick Barrett at:
• Mail or delivery: Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Mr. Rick Barrett (6PD–R), Air Permits
Throughout this document “we,” “our,” and “us” refers to EPA.
The 77th Texas State Legislature, 2001, amended the Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) and the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) to require that all grandfathered facilities obtain permits. A “grandfathered facility” is one that existed at the time the Legislature amended the TCAA in 1971. Texas began permitting new and modified sources in 1971, and sources built before Texas' permitting rules became effective were not required to obtain permits for air emissions as long as they were not modified as defined under Texas' New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) program.
The purpose of this rulemaking by EPA is to propose approval of the TCEQ's permit and emission control requirements for grandfathered facilities and related permit application, monitoring, reporting and public notice procedures. Specifically, the permit application requirements, methods for monitoring and reporting emissions, and public notice procedures for grandfathered facilities are the subject of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to fully approve certain revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, submitted by the State of Texas on July 31, 2002, and September 4, 2002. We are also proposing to fully approve the revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 submitted by the State of Texas on March 1, 2004. We are proposing to fully approve the July 31, 2002, and the September 4, 2002, submittals except for a severable portion in each which allows owners or operators of grandfathered facilities to apply for an existing facility flexible permit under the State's Flexible Permit Program. We will take separate action in the future in the
The July 31, 2002, submittal concerns Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” at 30 TAC sections 116.770–772, 116.774–777, 116.779–781, 116.783, 116.785–788, 116.790, 116.793–802, and 116.804–807. The TCEQ adopted these revisions on May 22, 2002.
The September 4, 2002, submittal concerns Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” at 30 TAC sections 116.778 and 116.803; and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits,” at 30 TAC section 116.919. The TCEQ adopted these revisions on August 21, 2002.
The March 1, 2004, submittal concerns Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” at 30 TAC sections 116.770 and 116.772. The TCEQ adopted these revisions on January 28, 2004.
Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a more detailed explanation of the submittal and the underlying regulatory requirements. The TSD is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
In the July 31, 2002 submittal, Texas submitted new and amended rules to Chapter 116, which include Subchapter A: “Definitions,” delineating certain definitions of words and terms used in Subchapter I; Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities”, Division 1, “General Applicability;” Division 2, “Small Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities Permits, and Existing Facility Permits;” Division 3, “Existing Facility Flexible Permits;” and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits.” In addition, Texas submitted 30 TAC Chapter 39, “Public Notice,” which includes Subchapter H: “Applicability and General Provisions,” and Subchapter K: “Public Notice of Air Quality Applications.”
The above-referenced provisions contained in the Subchapter A and Subchapter I of Chapter 116, and Subchapter H and Subchapter K of Chapter 39, are severable and not part of today's proposal action. The provisions in Subchapter A and Subchapter I of Chapter 116 were previously acted on. See 76 FR 1525 (January 11, 2011). The provisions in Subchapter H and Subchapter K of Chapter 39 were previously withdrawn. See letter dated July 2, 2010, from the TCEQ to EPA Region 6, in the public docket for this proposed action. Also, in the July 31, 2002 submittal concerning Chapter 116, Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” Division 3, “Existing Facility Flexible Permits,” sections 116.793–802 and 116.804–807 are severable and will be acted on in a future separate rulemaking. By severable, we mean that these sections can be implemented independently of the remaining portions of the submittal without affecting the stringency of the submitted rules.
EPA is acting only on a portion of Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities”: Division 1 and Division 2. The submitted amendments to Subchapter H, Permits for Grandfathered Facilities, implement the portions of TCAA, section 382.0158, which create new types of permits for grandfathered facilities. Division 1 and Division 2 representative sections include section 116.770, Requirements to Apply; section 116.774, Eligibility for Small Business Stationary Source Permits; section 116.775, Eligibility for Pipeline Facilities Permits; section 116.777, Eligibility for Existing Facility Permits; section 116.779, Applications for Small Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities Permits, or Existing Facility Permits; and section 116.783, Notice of Final Action on Pipeline Facilities Permit Applications and Existing Facility Permit Applications.
In section 116.770, the owner or operator of a grandfathered facility must apply for a permit to operate the facility under Chapter 116, qualify for a permit by rule under Chapter 106, or submit a notice of shutdown. Specific deadlines for facilities to apply are: Before September 1, 2003 for facilities located in the East Texas region, and before September 1, 2004 for facilities located in the West Texas region and El Paso County.
Section 116.774 identifies the types of facilities which are eligible for a small business stationary source permit in accordance with TCAA, section 382.05184. Only the owners or operators of facilities located at small business stationary sources and which are not required to submit emissions inventories to the commission may apply for a small business stationary source permit. The owner or operator must apply for the small business stationary source permit before September 1, 2004. The new section specifies that any grandfathered facility, including any facility for which the owner or operator has submitted a notice of shutdown located at a small business stationary source, may not emit air contaminants on or after March 1,
Section 116.775 identifies the types of facilities which are eligible for a pipeline facilities permit in accordance with TCAA, section 382.05186. The owner or operator of a grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engine or group of engines that are part of processing, treating, compression, or pumping facilities connected to or part of a gathering or transmission pipeline may apply for a pipeline facilities permit. The new section also requires an application for a pipeline facilities permit to be submitted under the seal of a Texas licensed professional engineer, if required by section 116.110(e), and states that the facility's owner or operator is responsible for applying for the permit and complying with the subchapter. The new section allows the owner or operator of more than one grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engine to apply for a pipeline facilities permit for a single grandfathered engine or for a group of grandfathered engines connected to or part of a gathering or transmission pipeline. The commission revised section 116.775(d) to clarify that the owner or operator may apply for a permit for a single engine or a group of engines.
Section 116.777 identifies the types of facilities which are eligible for an existing facility permit in accordance with TCAA, section 382.05183. The owner or operator of any grandfathered facility may apply for an existing facility permit. The new section also requires an application for an existing facility permit to be submitted under the seal of a Texas licensed professional engineer, if required by section 116.110(e), and states that the facility's owner or operator is responsible for applying for the permit and complying with Subchapter H.
Section 116.779 specifies the application requirements and demonstrations which must be met in order for a facility to be granted a small business stationary source permit, pipeline facilities permit, or existing facility permit. These requirements are consistent with the requirements for other permits issued under Chapter 116. Section 116.779 has three subsections:
Section 116.779(a) provides that the emissions from the facility must comply with the rules and regulations of the commission, including the protection of public health and physical property. The commission may not issue a permit for a grandfathered facility if it finds that the emissions from the grandfathered facility will not be protective of public health and physical property. In order to be consistent with the current review process for permits and applicable federal requirements, the section requires the owner or operator of a grandfathered facility applying for a small business stationary source permit, pipeline facilities permit, existing facility flexible permit, or EGF permit to be able to demonstrate that they meet applicable federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Facilities must be able to meet performance standards specified in the application and may be required to provide information that demonstrates ongoing compliance after the permit is issued. If applicable, facilities would be required to comply with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment review as specified in Chapter 116, Subchapter B. Since grandfathered facilities may be required to comply with any applicable Federal requirements (for example, NESHAP standards), EPA expects Texas to clearly identify state and federal requirements in the permit.
Section 116.779(b) specifies additional requirements which apply to applicants for a pipeline facilities permit. In accordance with TCAA, section 382.05186(e), facilities located in the East Texas region will be required to demonstrate that each engine will achieve at least a 50% reduction of the hourly emissions rate of NO
Section 116.779(c) specifies additional requirements with which applicants for an existing facility permit will have to comply. In accordance with TCAA, section 382.05183(b), applicants for existing facility permits will have to propose an air pollution control method that is at least as beneficial as the BACT that the commission required or would have required for a facility of the same class or type as a condition of issuing a permit or permit amendment 120 months (ten-year-old BACT) before the submittal of the existing facility permit application, considering the age and remaining useful life of the facility, and identify the date by which the control method will be implemented.
Section 116.783 specifies the commission's responsibilities for sending notice of the final action on an application for a pipeline facilities permit or an existing facility permit, and the information that the commission must include in the notice. The new section will require the commission to individually notify persons who commented during the public comment period or at a permit hearing, of the final action of the commission. The notice must be sent by first-class mail to the commenters and to the applicant. The proposed rule stated that the notice must include the response to comments, the identification of any changes in the permit, and a statement that any person affected by the decision of the commission may petition for rehearing and for judicial review. Because, in section 116.790, the commission is delegating to the executive director the authority to take any action on a permit issued under this division, this section now requires that the notice state that any person affected by the decision of the executive director may file a motion to overturn rather than a petition for rehearing.
In the September 4, 2002 submittal, Texas submitted new and amended rules to Chapter 116, which include Subchapter A: “Definitions,” which adds certain definitions; Subchapter B: “New Source Review Permits;” Subchapter D: “Permit Renewals;” Subchapter F: “Standard Permits;” Subchapter G, “Flexible Permits;” Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” Division 2, “Small Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities Permits, and Existing Facility Permits;” Division 3, “Existing Facility Flexible Permits;” and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits.”
The above-referenced provisions contained in Subchapter A, Subchapter
EPA is acting only on Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” Division 2; and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits,” from the September 4, 2002 submittal.
The submitted amendments to Subchapter H, Permits for Grandfathered Facilities, Division 2, implements the portions of TCAA, section 382.065, which primarily requires the permitting of all air contaminant emissions associated with dockside vessel operations. In Division 2, new section 116.778, “Additional Requirements for Applications for Small Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities Permits, or Existing Facility Permits” states that in addition to complying with all applicable requirements of Subchapter H, any application for a small business stationary source permit, a pipeline facilities permit, or an existing facility permit must include emissions from the facility resulting from any associated dockside vessel operations. These emissions must comply with all rules and regulations of the commission and with the intent of the TCAA, including protection of the health and property of the public and minimization of emissions to the extent possible, consistent with good air pollution control practices.
The submitted amendment to Subchapter I, Electric Generating Facility Permits, implements TCAA, section 382.05185(c) and (d), which adds additional requirements in new section 116.919. In addition to complying with all applicable requirements of this subchapter, any application for a new grandfathered electric generating facility permit for auxiliary combustors and coal-fired units only must include emissions from the facility resulting from any associated dockside vessel operations. These emissions must comply with all rules and regulations of the commission and with the intent of the TCAA, including protection of the health and property of the public and minimization of emissions to the extent possible, consistent with good air pollution control practices.
In the March 4, 2004 submittal, Texas submitted amended rules to Chapter 116, Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities, Division 1, General Applicability,” sections 116.770 and 116.772. The submitted amendments to Subchapter H, Permits for Grandfathered Facilities, implement portions of TCAA, section 382.05186, which requires pipeline facilities permits. The amended sections are: Section 116.770, Requirements to Apply; and section 116.772, Notice of Shutdown.
The amendment to section 116.770 changes the section title from “Requirement to Apply” to “Requirement to Apply or Register” to better specify the purpose of the section. Also, it adds new subsections (b) and (c), which specify that certain facilities are considered permitted and that the owners and operators of those facilities must submit registrations. Adopted section 116 .770(b) implements TCAA, section 382.05186(j). Specifically, section 116.770(b) states that a reciprocating internal combustion engine required to obtain a pipeline facility permit that is subject to a mass emissions cap established by the commission is considered permitted if the facility is located in an ozone nonattainment area and is in compliance with all state and federal requirements for that area by June 20, 2003. 30 TAC section 101.351(a) currently specifies that a mass emissions cap applies to the Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment area. Adopted section 116.770(b)(2) requires that the grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines satisfy any currently applicable state or federal regulations in effect as of June 20, 2003, the effective date of House Bill 638, in order to be considered permitted. In addition, the commission adopts new section 116.770(c), which requires owners and operators of facilities that are considered permitted under section 116.770(b) to submit registrations on or before July 1, 2004. The registration requirement is necessary for the executive director to determine whether all facilities that are considered to be permitted meet the criteria outlined in House Bill 638. The adopted subsections require registration rather than require those facilities to obtain a permit under Chapter 116, qualify for a permit by rule, or shut down. Registrations must be submitted by July 1, 2004, and must include Form PI–1 G, Grandfathered Facility Permit Application.
The amendment to section 116.772 only adopts a change to the cross-references in section 116.772(a) and (b) to parallel changes made in section 116.770.
The July 31, 2002, September 4, 2002, and March 1, 2004 submittals address the applicability and permitting requirements for grandfathered facilities. The permits issued for these facilities are expected to result in reduced emissions of air contaminants and improved compliance with state and federal air pollution control requirements. Further, these permits should achieve better protection of public health and welfare, and improve the existing SIP. These provisions meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(a) that each plan include legally enforceable procedures to determine whether the construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination of these will result in (1) a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy; or (2) interference with attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the state in which the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring state.
The revision also meets 40 CFR 51.160(e) by identifying a type of facility that will be subject to review under 40 CFR 51.160(a). In this case, Texas specifically identified grandfathered facilities.
The revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 116, concerning the permitting of grandfathered facilities, will achieve Texas' emissions reductions goals. Compliance with these revisions will cause decreased air emissions due to the shutdown of the source, or the use of emission control methods on grandfathered sources that had previously been exempt from having to use emission controls. Because the revisions will cause additional emission reductions from these sources, they will better serve to protect the public health and welfare. The revisions will also continue to contribute to improvement of air quality and attainment or maintenance of the federal air quality standards. Overall, these provisions serve to improve the existing SIP. Lastly, these provisions meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(a) that each plan include legally enforceable procedures to determine whether the construction or modification of a facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination of these will result in (1) a violation of applicable portions of the control
Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Clean Air Act requires reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption by the State and submission to EPA as a SIP revision. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act. EPA is proposing to approve these revisions because they improve the SIP in accordance with Section 110 of the Act. The reductions achieved through the permitting of grandfathered facilities program occur throughout the State of Texas and include reducing precursors to ozone (NO
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that includes 30 TAC Chapter 116, subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” sections 116.770–772, 116.774–777, 116.779–781, 116.783, 116.785–788, 116.790, 116.793–802, and 116.804– 807, which Texas submitted on July 31, 2002. EPA is proposing to approve all of the July 31, 2002, SIP revision submittal as part of the Texas NSR SIP except sections 116.793– 802 and 116.804–807, as discussed above.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that includes 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities,” sections 116.778 and 116.803; and Subchapter I: “Electric Generating Facility Permits,” section 116.919, which Texas submitted on September 4, 2002. EPA is proposing to approve all of the September 4, 2002, SIP revision submittal as part of the Texas NSR SIP except section 116.803 as discussed above.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that include 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter H: “Permits for Grandfathered Facilities” sections 116.770 and 116.772, which Texas submitted on March 1, 2004. EPA is proposing to approve all of the March 1, 2004, SIP revision submittal as part of the Texas NSR SIP
The July 31, 2002, September 4, 2002, and March 1, 2004 submittals address the applicability and permitting requirements for grandfathered facilities. The revisions will contribute to improvement in overall air quality in Texas. We have evaluated the State's submittal, determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA air quality regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.
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 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 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia adding ambient air quality standards and associated reference conditions for Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Comments must be received in writing by November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0594 by one of the following methods:
A.
B
C.
D.
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by California for the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDAQMD) portion of the California SIP. The submitted SIP revision contains the District's demonstrations regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We are proposing to approve the submitted SIP revision under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by November 25, 2013.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0683, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4122,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the document addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
EDAQMD's RACT SIP submittal became complete by operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) on January 11, 2008.
There is no previous version of this document in the El Dorado portion of the California SIP.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Section IV.G. of EPA's final rule to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, States implementing the 8-hour standard generally must assure that RACT is met either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8-hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. The submitted document provides EDAQMD's analyses of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's technical support document (TSD)(“2006 RACT SIP TSD”) has more information about the District's submission and EPA's evaluation thereof.
Rules and guidance documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT SIPs include the following:
1. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
2. “State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
3. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
4.
5. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (“the NO
6. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
7. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers”.
8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA's current CTGs, ACTs, and other documents which may help to establish RACT.
With respect to major stationary sources, EPA evaluated the 2006 RACT SIP submission in accordance with the major source threshold (25 tons per year) that applies in severe ozone nonattainment areas. CAA 182(d), (f).
The 2006 RACT SIP provides the District's conclusion that the applicable SIP for the El Dorado County AQMD
First, with respect to CTG source categories, Appendix A of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists all CTG source categories and matches those CTG categories with corresponding District rules which implement RACT. EDAQMD also searched its database of permitted sources and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and other source data and emission inventory data for potential sources belonging to those CTG categories for which the District did not have rules. Based on these evaluations, the District's analysis indicated that except for the metal parts and products category, there were no CTG source categories for which the District had sources but no applicable RACT requirement.
We reviewed CARB's emissions inventory database for other potential CTG and/or major non-CTG sources not included in EDAQMD's analysis and did not identify any additional CTG source category or major source in the District that is subject to section 182 RACT.
It should be noted that EDAQMD does not have many significant air pollution sources and has submitted a number of negative declarations. Not including gasoline stations, print shops, autobody shops and dry cleaners, CARB's 2007 emissions inventory for EDAQMD only lists six facilities. Included in the six is EDAQMD's only major source, Sierra Pacific sawmill, which shut operations in 2009 and has not restarted.
Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG document, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such sources in the relevant nonattainment area. Table 1 below lists all of the source categories for which EDAQMD's 2006 RACT SIP provides negative declarations.
We are proposing to find that the EDAQMD 2006 RACT SIP submission, including all of these negative declarations, adequately demonstrates that the applicable SIP rules for all CTG source categories operating within the El Dorado AQMD satisfy RACT and that there are no existing major stationary sources of NO
We recommend strengthening the solvent cleaning limits in Rule 225, “Solvent Cleaning Operations (Degreasing)” and coating limits in Rule 215, “Architectural Coatings,” to more closely match corresponding requirements adopted by the Sacramento Metro AQMD and Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
Based on the evaluations discussed above and more fully in our 2006 RACT SIP TSD, we are proposing to conclude that EDAQMD's 2006 RACT SIP submission satisfies CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to fully approve this submission into the California SIP pursuant to 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 this RACT submission into the federally enforceable SIP.
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. This 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 et seq.);
• 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 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, with practical and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to the State of Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP), Title V program and Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) Plan. The purpose of these revisions is to make general updates to existing state air quality rules, approve an exemption from constructing permitting for engines used in periodic pipeline testing, approve changes to State rules regarding regional haze requirements, and to approve adoption of Federal regulations including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP provisions pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
EPA is also proposing to approve the State of Iowa's negative declaration and withdrawal of its section 111(d)/129 plan for Hospital Medical Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) units. EPA is proposing approval of these actions pursuant to section 111 of the CAA.
EPA is also proposing to approve two minor administrative changes to the Title V program, pursuant to section 500 of the CAA.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0410; by mail to Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460, or by email at
In the final rules section of today's
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), (703) 305–7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. 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.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), (21 U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available online at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.
We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 23 species of corals as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 3 species:
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by December 24, 2013.
You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA–NMFS–2013–0138, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Fax: 301–713–4060, Attn: Dwayne Meadows.
Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at:
Dwayne Meadows, Office of Protected Resources, 301–427–8403.
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from us (see
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a “species,” which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). This finding only addresses invertebrate corals, so the DPS option cannot be considered. A species or subspecies is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively; 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, the determination of whether a species is threatened or endangered shall be based on any one or a combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition, including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
In this petition the petitioner relies almost exclusively on the risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of information on the status of each petitioned species. All of the petitioned species are listed as “endangered” or “critically endangered” on the IUCN Redlist and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in offering petitions on these species. Species classifications under the IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, we instead consider the information on threats identified by the petitioners, as well as the data on which they are based, as they pertain to each petitioned species.
All of the species considered in this petition are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). According to Article II of CITES, species listed on Appendix II are those that are “not necessarily now threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.” Based on the CITES definitions and standards for listing species on Appendix II, the species' actual listing on Appendix II is not itself an inherent indication that these species may now warrant threatened or endangered status under the ESA. Species classifications under CITES and the ESA are not equivalent, and criteria used to evaluate species are not the same. Thus, we instead consider the available information on the threat of international trade (see below).
Most of the petitioned coral species are shallow water, reef-building anthozoan corals. The two
The introductory part of the coral section of the petition provides general background information on corals, including anatomy, symbiosis with photosynthetic zooxanthellae, reef formation, physiological needs, and biodiversity. A general description of threats following the five ESA Section 4(a)(1) factors is provided in the introductory coral section of the petition and is meant to apply to all of the petitioned corals. This section discusses the following threats: Extraction, utilization, habitat destruction, sedimentation, disease, predation by crown-of-thorns starfish (
Information in our files included the materials cited in the status review
The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and common names of the species involved. The petition also contains a narrative justification for the recommended measures and provides limited information on the species' geographic distribution, habitat use, and threats. Limited information is provided on past and present numbers, population status and trends for all but a couple of species. A synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files is provided below.
Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, we find that each of the 23 petitioned species constitutes a valid “species” eligible for listing under the ESA as each is a valid taxonomic species.
The introductory threats discussion is general and not tied to any of the specific petitioned species besides information later repeated in the species-specific section (discussed below). The petitioners cite the Brainard
While the information in this introductory section is otherwise largely accurate and suggests concern for the status of corals generally, its broadness, generality, and speculative nature, and the failure of the petitioner to make reasonable connections between the threats discussed and the status of the individual petitioned species, means that we cannot find that this information reasonably suggests that one or more of these threat factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on any of the petitioned species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. There is little information in this introductory section indicating that particular petitioned species may be responding in a negative fashion to any of the discussed threats. Therefore, we determine that the information in this section does not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted for any of the petitioned species.
The next part of the petition consists of individual species accounts for each of the 23 petitioned corals. Accompanying the petition account for each species is a reference to the IUCN assessment from 2008, a list of references used in the IUCN assessment, and our status review report for a prior petition to list 82 species of corals (Brainard
The petitioners use 2004 ocean-basin wide estimates of reef habitat that has already been destroyed or is “likely to be destroyed within 20 years” (Wilkinson, 2004) as proxies for likely trends in population size for the petitioned species. We find this problematic for a number of reasons: The habitat loss data are broad geographic estimates that do not necessarily reflect the actual range of the petitioned species; it is unclear on what basis and using what data Wilkinson (2004) was able to estimate future habitat loss; not all species respond the same way to the threats underlying the assumed habitat loss (see above discussion); and in fact, the estimated trend in population status contradicts other information in the petitions and IUCN assessments for some species (e.g.,
Finally, within each species' petition the petitioner provides a discussion of the ESA section 4(a)(1) threats. Much of this discussion, especially for climate change effects, repeats almost verbatim discussion in the general introduction for all corals. Species-specific information in these petitions is discussed further below.
Overall, the petition provides no species-specific information for 15 of the petitioned species and solely relies on generalizations from related species and broad assumptions that potential threats are actually influencing the petitioned species. For each of these 15 species listed below, we also had no additional information in our files with which to assess status or potential extinction risk to the species. Therefore, based on our policies as described above for reviewing petitions at this stage, we find that for the 15 petitioned species where there is no species-specific trend, life-history or threat information, the information presented in the petition does not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. The 15 species to which this conclusion applies are:
For the following species, at least some species-specific information on population trends, life history, and/or threats was provided in the petition or available in our files in addition to the general information discussed above. Below we analyze this species-specific information in light of the standards of the ESA and our policies as described above.
The petition notes that
The petitioner cites the IUCN assessment that notes that
For
Species-specific population data are available for
Some species-specific abundance data exist for
Some species-specific abundance data exist for
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, including the sections of the petition applicable to all of the petitioned corals as well as the species-specific information, we conclude the petition in its entirety does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for 20 of the 23 species of corals. These 20 species are:
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the three species we believe may be warranted for listing (
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plans for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council); and Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources of the Gulf and South Atlantic Region, as prepared by the Gulf Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) (Headboat Reporting Framework). If implemented, this rule would modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for headboat owners and operators who fish for species managed by the Gulf Council through the previously mentioned FMPs. These revisions would require fishing records to be submitted electronically (via computer or internet) on a weekly basis or at intervals shorter than a week if notified by the NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) Science and Research Director (SRD), and would prohibit headboats from continuing to fish if they are delinquent in submitting reports. The purpose of this rule is to obtain timelier fishing information from headboats to
Written comments must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA–NMFS–2013–0111”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the Headboat Reporting Framework, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted in writing to Anik Clemens, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; and OMB, by email at
Rich Malinowski, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone 727–824–5305; email:
NMFS and the Councils manage the fisheries for Gulf reef fish and Gulf and South Atlantic CMP under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to specify their strategy to rebuild overfished stocks to a sustainable level within a certain time frame, to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, and to establish accountability measures (AMs) for stocks to ensure that ACLs are not exceeded.
One of the purposes of this proposed rule is to allow better monitoring of recreational ACLs to reduce the amount of recreational ACL overages. Currently, overages have the potential to result in significant disruption in fishing behavior the following fishing year and to reduce revenue and profit for fishermen. Overages also may decrease the ability of stocks to rebuild when overfished and may lead to overfishing conditions. The management measures contained in this proposed rule, including requiring headboats to report electronically and increasing the frequency of headboat reporting, would help improve monitoring of the recreational ACLs.
The other purposes of this proposed rule are to improve stock assessments and to improve data reporting compliance in Gulf fisheries. Headboat landings are an important component of stock assessments. The increased frequency of headboat data reporting and electronic reporting required by this rule would help to improve stock assessments because it would provide a more accurate picture of headboat landings. Headboat owners and operators who are delinquent on submitting reports would not be allowed to fish until all required reports have been submitted. This requirement should help to improve compliance with data reporting within the recreational sector.
In addition, the management measures contained in this proposed rule are compatible with the proposed revisions to headboat reporting requirements for fisheries managed by the South Atlantic Council.
This proposed rule would: require electronic reporting for headboat vessels in the Gulf reef fish and Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fisheries; increase the reporting frequency for headboat vessels in these fisheries; and prohibit headboats from continuing to fish if they are delinquent in submitting their reports.
Currently, a headboat selected to report by the SRD must maintain a fishing record for each trip, or a portion of such trips, as specified by the SRD, and on forms provided by the SRD. Until January 1, 2013, the SRD provided federally permitted headboats with paper forms to submit their fishing data. However, as of January 1, 2013, the SRD requested that federally-permitted headboats report electronically. This proposed rule would revise the regulations to explicitly require that headboats submit their fishing information electronically (via computer or Internet). NMFS would require headboat owners and operators, who are selected by the SRD, to submit a detailed electronic fishing record of all fish caught through the “Southeast Region Headboat Survey,” an electronic reporting system developed by the SEFSC for trips completed, and to submit no fishing reports when no trips are taken.
Headboat owners and operators would be required to submit an electronic logbook (eLog) form instead of a paper form. This form is available through a password protected Web site that can be accessed by personal computer, computer tablet, or “smart” phone (an application can be downloaded on both Android phones and iPhones). The Web site can be accessed at
The data elements for completed trips that are currently being collected by the SRD include date(s) and duration of fishing; vessel name and official number of the vessel; captain name; location of fishing in lat/long; number of anglers; minimum, maximum and primary depth fished; number of fish of each species kept; and number of fish of each species released.
During catastrophic conditions only, this rule would allow headboat owners and operators to use a paper-based system for submitting electronic fishing records. The Regional Administrator (RA) would determine when catastrophic conditions exist, the duration of the catastrophic conditions, and which participants are affected. The RA would provide notice of a paper-based system via notification in the
Currently, headboat reporting forms are due on a monthly basis, and must either be made available to a fisheries statistics reporting agent or be postmarked no later than 7 days after the end of each month and sent to the SRD. This proposed rule would modify the frequency of reporting to be on a weekly basis (or intervals shorter than a week if notified by the SRD) and would be due by 11:59 p.m., local time, the Sunday following a reporting week. A reporting week is defined as beginning at 12:01 a.m., local time, on Sunday and ending at 11:59 p.m., local time, the following Saturday. If no fishing activity occurred during a reporting week, an electronic report so stating would be required to be submitted for that reporting week.
This rule would prohibit headboat owners and operators who are delinquent in submitting their fishing records from continuing to harvest and possess Gulf reef fish and Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish until all required fishing records have been submitted. The owner and operator are liable for all prohibited harvest and possession onboard the vessel, including that by the crew and/or passengers. This provision would aid in enforcement efforts to ensure that electronic fishing records are submitted in a timely manner.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the two affected FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
The purpose of this proposed rule is to change the current reporting requirements for federally permitted headboats that operate in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in order to improve data collection methods to help ensure that landings of managed fish stocks are recorded accurately and in a timely manner so that recreational ACLs are not exceeded. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to directly affect an estimated 70 headboat for-hire fishing businesses that operate in the Gulf EEZ. The average headboat is estimated to receive approximately $247,000 (2012 dollars) in annual gross revenue. NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including seafood dealers and harvesters. A business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.0 million (NAICS code 487210, fishing boat charter operation). The SBA periodically reviews the size criteria and establishes new thresholds when appropriate. The most recent final rule establishing new size criteria was published June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37398). However, the receipts threshold for the for-hire industry was not changed as a result of the latest or other recent review and rulemaking by the SBA. Because the average annual revenue for the headboat businesses expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule is significantly less than the SBA revenue threshold, all these businesses are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small business entities.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would require headboat fishing businesses selected by the SRD to submit weekly records, or at shorter intervals if notified by the SRD, of their fishing activity via computer or Internet (electronic reporting). This requirement would not be expected to require special professional skills. The use of computers, the Internet, or other forms of electronic connections and communication is commonplace in the business environment. As a result, all affected small entities would be expected to already have staff with the appropriate skills and training to meet this requirement.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would be expected to have little to no impact on the profits of any of the small entities expected to be directly affected. Although not currently explicitly required by regulation, the SRD has requested electronic reporting since January 1, 2013, for federally-permitted Gulf headboats. As a result, most, if not all, Gulf headboat businesses are expected to currently be submitting reports of their fishing activity electronically. For any headboat business that may not currently use the electronic reporting system, any increase in operating expenses should be minor. The use of computers and the Internet is commonplace and a vital tool in business management. The SBA estimated that in 2010 approximately 94 percent of businesses had a computer and 95 percent of these had Internet service. As a result, the majority of the affected entities would not be expected to need to incur new operational expenses to report electronically. For those few entities that might not already be reporting electronically, any new expenses that might need to be incurred would not be expected to constitute a significant increase in business expenses. Computers under $750 are readily available and Internet services under $100 per month would be expected to be available in most locations. The estimated average annual revenue for a Gulf headboat business is approximately $247,000 (2012 dollars). NMFS estimates that the requirement for Gulf headboat owners and operators to report electronically would result in a net zero effect on the reporting burden
This proposed rule, if implemented, would also increase the frequency of reporting by Gulf headboat businesses selected by the SRD from the current requirement of monthly reports that must be submitted within 7 days of the end of each month to weekly reporting (7 days after the end of each week ending on Sunday) or at shorter intervals if notified by the SRD. Keeping accurate records is essential to successful business operation. As a result, recording trips as they are completed, or as soon as is practical, is expected to be the common business practice. Electronic recording and reporting would be expected to support additional labor and business management efficiencies because it would be expected to allow better data storage, retrieval, and production of annual performance summaries for use in business planning. Therefore, the proposed increase in the frequency of reporting would be expected to require little, if any, change in business practices or associated operational costs.
Additionally, this proposed rule would prohibit vessels from fishing if required fishing records have not been submitted within the required timeframe. Although a prohibition on fishing could have a significant adverse economic effect on the affected business, depending on the duration of prohibition and revenue from non-fishing activities, failure to submit the required electronic fishing records would not be an economically rational business practice in light of the minimal burden to submit fishing records and potential consequences of non-compliance. As a result, few if any headboat businesses would be expected to experience any reduction in profit as a result of this component of this proposed rule.
Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. NMFS is revising the collection-of-information requirements under OMB control number 0648–0016. NMFS estimates the requirement for Gulf headboat owners and operators to report electronically would result in a net zero effect on the reporting burden under OMB control number 0648–0016, because headboat owners and operators would continue to report all species harvested, however, now it would be electronically instead of by paper. NMFS estimates the requirement for headboat owners and operators to report more frequently (weekly instead of monthly) would not create more burden on headboat owners and operators, because the headboat owners and operators would still be reporting the same amount of information, they would just be transmitting the data more frequently. These estimates of the public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.
These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. NMFS seeks public comment regarding: Whether this proposed collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see
Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Headboat, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(4)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 99 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). If approved, Amendment 99 would enable the holders of license limitation program (LLP) licenses authorizing a designated vessel to catch and process Pacific cod in the BSAI hook-and-line fisheries to use newly built or existing vessels that are not eligible under current vessel length and capacity restrictions. This action is necessary to promote safety-at-sea by encouraging the replacement of older vessels with newer and more efficient vessels that are able to meet modern vessel safety standards. This action is intended to facilitate the increased retention and utilization of groundfish by allowing sector participants to use larger vessels with increased processing and hold capabilities. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the BSAI FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable laws.
Submit comments on or before November 25, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA–NMFS–2012–0220, by any of the following methods:
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed action may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska Region and by email to
Seanbob Kelly, 907–586–7228.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 99 to the BSAI FMP. NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) and the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. Regulations implementing the GOA FMP and BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
The proposed action would amend the BSAI FMP and revise Federal regulations to: (1) Increase the maximum length overall (MLOA) to 220 feet (67 m) on LLP licenses authorizing vessels to catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BSAI; (2) allow holders of LLP licenses authorized to catch and process Pacific cod with both hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI to increase the MLOA on the LLP license to 220 feet (67 m) only if the pot gear endorsement is surrendered within a specific time frame; and (3) allow vessels that catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line in the BSAI to exceed length, tonnage, and power limits established under the American Fisheries Act (AFA). The following sections provide background on the need for, the objectives of, and the effects of the proposed action.
Under the LLP, which was implemented by NMFS on January 1, 2000 (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998), an LLP license is required for all vessels directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI and GOA, with limited exemptions for smaller vessels and vessels using a limited amount of jig gear. Directed fishing is defined in regulations at § 679.2. For a vessel designated on an LLP license, the LLP license authorizes the type of fishing gear that may be used by the vessel, the maximum size of the vessel, and whether the vessel may catch and process fish at sea or if it is limited to delivering catch without at-sea processing. LLP licenses that allow vessels to catch and process at-sea are assigned a catcher/processor (C/P) endorsement, and those that restrict vessels from at-sea processing are assigned a catcher vessel endorsement.
LLP licenses specify the MLOA of the vessel to which that LLP license may be assigned. Participants in LLP groundfish fisheries are prohibited from using a vessel to fish for LLP groundfish that has a length overall (LOA) that is greater than the MLOA specified on the LLP license (see § 679.7(i)(6)). Until 2003, an LLP license included gear and operational type (C/P or catcher vessel) endorsements, but did not include endorsements to directed fish for specific groundfish species. In 2003, NMFS modified the LLP to include a species endorsement for Pacific cod in the BSAI. In 2011, NMFS implemented modifications to the LLP to include a species endorsement for Pacific cod in
The LLP Pacific cod endorsement requirement has, in effect, limited the number of vessels that are eligible to fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA. For example, under existing LLP regulations, the vessels currently used to directed fish for Pacific cod in the BSAI using hook-and-line gear and to process that catch at sea must be assigned an LLP license with a BSAI Pacific cod hook-and-line C/P endorsement. Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 2887, Dec. 8, 2004, at section 219(a)(6), defines the term “longline catcher processor subsector” as “the holders of an LLP license that is noninterim and transferable, or that is interim and subsequently becomes noninterim and transferable, and that is endorsed for Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands catcher processor fishing activity, C/P, Pcod [Pacific cod], hook and line gear.” There are 36 LLP licenses that meet the eligibility criteria for the BSAI longline C/P subsector as defined in section 219(a)(6).
Most vessels currently operating in the BSAI longline C/P subsector were not designed as fishing vessels for the BSAI but were converted to longline C/Ps from some other use. The vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector range in length from 107 feet (32.6 m) to 180 feet (54.8 m) LOA. The average age of the vessels in this fleet is approximately 40 years, and 30 percent were built before 1946. In general, the newer vessels participating in this subsector have longer LOAs and were designed to specifically target groundfish with longline gear. Production capacity is directly related to vessel length and overall vessel design. For example, the larger vessels in the fleet can accommodate larger freezer holds that allow vessels to stay at sea for longer periods. Larger vessels can provide a larger processing platform that can be converted to accommodate more processing equipment, which can be optimally located in vessels specifically designed for fishing to increase overall daily throughput. Moreover, longer vessels are able to operate in most weather conditions, including conditions that may be considered adverse by longline C/Ps with relatively shorter length. Vessels participating in the BSAI longline C/P subsector are described in more detail in section 1.5 of the RIR for this action (See
Vessels used in the BSAI longline C/P subsector target groundfish with longline gear that consists of a stationary, buoyed, and anchored line with hooks attached for the taking of fish. Once landed, groundfish are sorted by size and weight, and then packed and frozen onboard. Vessels eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector primarily target Pacific cod in the BSAI, but many also participate in Greenland turbot and sablefish fisheries in the BSAI, as well as Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA. In addition, vessels using longline gear retain incidentally caught species such as skates, rockfish, arrowtooth flounder, and pollock.
Recent participation information for vessels eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P sector indicates that the number of these vessels harvesting Pacific cod in the BSAI fishery has been relatively stable and the number of vessels harvesting Pacific cod in the GOA fishery has declined. From 2011 through 2013, approximately 33 vessels eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P sector harvested Pacific cod in the BSAI. Of the 36 LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector, 27 LLP licenses are also endorsed to fish in the GOA Pacific cod fisheries. The number of vessels named on the 36 LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector that harvested Pacific cod in the GOA declined from a peak of 18 vessels in 2007 to 14 vessels in 2011, and to 6 vessels in 2012. Three of the 36 LLP licenses that are eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector are also authorized to participate in the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries with a C/P using pot gear; of these three licenses, only one is also endorsed to authorize participation in the Western GOA Pacific cod fisheries with a C/P using pot gear. Vessels named on these three LLP licenses may elect to participate in either the longline or pot C/P sector in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery, or the vessel may participate in both sectors.
The Council and NMFS annually establish total allowable catch (TAC) limits for Pacific cod and other groundfish targeted by C/Ps using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI and the GOA. The TAC amounts are allocated among user groups as part of the annual harvest specifications process, as authorized at § 679.20. In the BSAI, Pacific cod is apportioned between the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program and non-CDQ fishery participants. Allocations to the CDQ Program are assigned to CDQ groups as defined by section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The CDQ groups harvest almost all their Pacific cod allocations with vessels that are members of the BSAI longline C/P subsector.
In 2007, NMFS modified the Pacific cod allocations to specific sectors in the BSAI under regulations implementing Amendment 85 to the BSAI FMP (72 FR 50788, September 4, 2007). Amendment 85 modified the allocations of the annual BSAI Pacific cod TAC among various harvest sectors as seasonal apportionments. Amendment 85 increased the percentage of the BSAI Pacific cod TAC apportioned to the CDQ Program from 7.5 percent to 10.7 percent. The remaining TAC, known as non-CDQ TAC, is further apportioned between seasons for jig, pot, hook-and-line, and trawl gear types and operating types. The BSAI longline C/P subsector receives 48.7 percent of the annual non-CDQ allocation of the Pacific cod TAC as two separate seasonal allowances. The regulations implementing Amendment 85 require a sector to stop conducting directed fishing for Pacific cod when its allocation is exhausted, even if TAC allocated to other sectors remains unharvested. This ensures that fishery participants in one sector do not compete for BSAI Pacific cod with participants in other sectors.
The BSAI longline C/P subsector is also allocated a limited amount of halibut to be used as prohibited species catch (PSC) in the Pacific cod fishery under regulations implementing Amendment 85 because halibut is incidentally caught by vessels using hook-and-line gear. The halibut PSC limit ensures that total incidental mortality of halibut does not exceed a specified limit while at the same time allowing participants to conduct their target fisheries. Once this halibut PSC limit is reached, then NMFS closes directed fishing for groundfish that results in the take of halibut. This halibut PSC limit constrains the BSAI longline C/P subsector in the Pacific cod
NMFS has also established specific allocations of Pacific cod in the GOA similar to those in the BSAI. In December 2009, the Council recommended that NMFS implement Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP to supersede the inshore/offshore processing allocations of Pacific cod and establish sector allocations of the TACs. Upon implementation of Amendment 83 in 2012 (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011), NMFS divided the GOA Pacific cod TACs and halibut PSC among gear and operation type, based primarily on historical dependency and catch history by each sector. The hook-and-line C/P sector is allocated 19.8 percent of the annual Western GOA TAC and 5.1 percent of the annual Central GOA TAC. Halibut PSC is also apportioned between the hook-and-line C/P and catcher vessel sectors proportional to the allocation of Pacific cod to those sectors. Consistent with halibut PSC management in the BSAI, this halibut PSC allocation ensures that total incidental mortality of halibut does not exceed a specified limit while at the same time allowing participants to conduct their target fisheries. Additional detail on Pacific cod and halibut PSC apportionment is provided in the final rule implementing Amendment 83 and is not repeated here (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011).
In addition to the constraints on Pacific cod allocations and halibut PSC limits implemented under regulations for Amendment 85 to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP, the BSAI longline C/P subsector has voluntarily developed private contractual arrangements to limit Pacific cod and halibut PSC use in the BSAI, effectively establishing a
In 2010, Congress passed the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Fishery Cooperative Act (Pub. L. 111–335) to modify the process to form a cooperative in the subsector. Under this Act, NMFS must implement a single, mandatory cooperative with exclusive catch privileges for each BSAI longline C/P subsector LLP license holder if requested to do so by persons holding at least 80 percent of the LLP licenses eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector (i.e., at least 29 of the 36 LLP licenses). To date, NMFS has not received any such request; however, the fact that such a mandatory cooperative is explicitly authorized by Congress helps to ensure that if the voluntary cooperative established by the FLCC is unable to continue, regulations to establish a mandatory cooperative with exclusive catch privileges could be implemented by NMFS upon request of a sufficient number of the members of the subsector.
Although participants in the BSAI longline C/P subsector are currently authorized to replace their vessels, the LLP limits the ability of vessels to exceed a specific length. In addition, provisions of the AFA limit a vessel owner's ability to receive a fishery endorsement for a replacement vessel that exceeds specified length, power, and displacement restrictions unless specifically recommended by the Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. These statutory vessel capacity restrictions are described in more detail in the “American Fisheries Act and United States Maritime Administration” section of this preamble.
The Council and NMFS recognize that these regulatory and statutory vessel capacity restrictions provide a disincentive for owners to rebuild or replace their vessels with larger, more efficient and safer vessels. In October 2012, the Council recommended Amendment 99, which would allow owners of vessels used in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to rebuild or replace their vessels with larger vessels. The principal objective of the proposed action is to promote the sustainable harvest of groundfish, especially Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA, by removing disincentives for owners of vessels to rebuild or replace their vessels with larger vessels. To the extent that the vessel owners exercise the vessel replacement opportunity provided in this proposed action, it would promote efficient utilization of the Pacific cod resource in the BSAI and GOA. The proposed action would also promote safety-at-sea by allowing vessel owners to replace existing vessels with vessels that can accommodate improved safety features and minimize the risks faced by crew members.
The Council and NMFS recognize that raising the vessel length limits could provide vessel owners with the additional hold capacity necessary to increase the rate of processing throughput and storage capacity. As discussed in section 1.6.2 of the RIR prepared for this action, larger vessels can incorporate larger freezer holds that allow a vessel to stay at sea for longer periods, while smaller vessels generally require more trips to travel to and from fishing grounds to offload product. Fewer trips would increase vessel efficiency by reducing fuel consumption and minimizing transit time, which would allow vessel owners to minimize the time required to harvest their quota. The Council recognized the need to lengthen the vessel size restrictions to encourage vessel owners to accelerate the replacement of vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector fleet. The Council noted that in many cases the cost of a new vessel may not be affordable without the increased production efficiency that could result from constructing a larger, more efficient vessel that meets modern safety requirements.
Under Amendment 99, the MLOA specified on LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector that are not also endorsed for pot gear would be increased to 200 feet (67 m). The Council determined that a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA for these eligible LLP licenses would encourage LLP license holders in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to replace aging vessels with newer, safer, and more efficient vessels. The Council considered several size limits, including no size limit, and other variable rate and fixed-length increases to vessel size prior to recommending Amendment 99. Prior to selecting a preferred alternative, the Council received public testimony that a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA would provide adequate incentives to meet the Council's objectives for this action and likely would allow vessel owners to replace vessels with new vessels that could accommodate improved efficiency and safety design. Specifically, vessel owners potentially affected by this proposed action stated that anticipated vessel designs likely would not result in vessels greater than 220 feet (67 m) due to the costs of construction and operation of these larger vessels relative to anticipated revenues. These assertions are supported by section 1.6.2.2 of the RIR prepared for this action, which describes that processing capacity constraints likely limit the size of vessels used in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to 220 feet (67 m) or less.
Currently, each of the 36 LLP licenses eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector have an MLOA equal to or less than 220 feet (67 m). The average MLOA specified on an LLP license currently eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector is 152.6 feet (46.5 m). Seventeen of the 36 eligible LLP licenses have an MLOA of less than 150 feet (45.7 m). Increasing the MLOA specified on the LLP licenses in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to 220 feet (67 m) would not constrain any existing LLP licenses in terms of vessel length. Additional detail on the LLP licenses currently eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector can be found in section 1.5.1 of the RIR for this action (see
The Council also recommended management measures designed to protect historical participants in the Pacific cod pot fisheries that could be adversely affected by the use of larger, more efficient vessels in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. As noted earlier in this preamble, the Council and NMFS recognized that three of the 36 LLP licenses endorsed for participation in the the BSAI longline C/P subsector also authorize the designated vessel to target Pacific cod with C/Ps using pot gear in the BSAI: Two of those LLP licenses authorize participation in the BSAI Pacific cod fisheries with C/Ps using pot gear; one of the LLP licenses authorizes participation in the BSAI and Western GOA Pacific cod fisheries with C/Ps using pot gear. The proposed regulations to implement Amendment 99 would allow a person holding a LLP license endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line and pot gear in the BSAI to increase the MLOA on the LLP license to 220 feet (67 m) only if the LLP holder elects to surrender any Pacific cod pot gear endorsements within a specific time frame. The Council and the Secretary recognize the potentially adverse competitive effects of increased fishing capacity by the longline C/P subsector relative to the C/Ps using pot gear. Under this proposed rule, holders of the two BSAI longline C/P subsector LLP licenses with BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements could either surrender the BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and receive an LLP license with a 220 feet (67 m) MLOA or retain their current MLOA and continue to participate in both fisheries. Similarly, the holder of the BSAI longline C/P subsector LLP license with BSAI and Western GOA Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements could either surrender the BSAI and GOA Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and receive an LLP license with a 220 feet (67 m) MLOA or retain the BSAI Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements and the current LLP license MLOA would continue to apply.
The Council recognized that allowing holders of LLP licenses with Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements to name larger vessels on those LLP licenses could increase vessel capacity in the pot gear C/P fisheries and could disadvantage historical participants in the sector who would continue to be constrained by the MLOAs specified on their LLP licenses. As a result, the Council determined that allowing some participants in the pot gear C/P fisheries with hook-and-line endorsements to have longer MLOAs specified on their LLP licenses could allow these participants to harvest a greater proportion of the GOA Pacific cod sector allocation relative to their historical catch. This could negatively impact historical participants in the Pacific cod pot fisheries and would not promote a fair and equitable standard for all participants in the pot gear C/P fisheries. The Council recommended that NMFS promulgate regulations to ensure that holders of LLP licenses eligible for the BSAI longline C/P subsector that choose to retain Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements would continue to be restricted by the current MLOAs on the LLP licenses. The Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, a time limit on the one-time permanent election for these LLP license holders that would close 36 months from the date of implementation of this action, if it is approved. The deadline for making the one-time election is intended to promote the conservation and management of the BSAI and GOA Pacific cod fisheries by clearly identifying pot gear C/P sector participants within a reasonable time frame and by establishing an upper limit on vessel capacity in the BSAI longline C/P subsector.
To implement Amendment 99, NMFS would increase the MLOA on LLP licenses eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Vessels are prohibited, at 679.7(h)(6), from fishing for LLP groundfish with a vessel that has a length overall that exceeds the MLOA specified on the license that authorizes fishing for the LLP groundfish. Therefore, under this action, the MLOA on an eligible LLP license would be increased. This proposed action would not prevent subsector participants from naming an existing vessel on their LLP license; however, the Council and NMFS anticipate that most replacement vessels would be newly constructed. As noted earlier in this preamble, newly constructed vessels would be better designed for fishing than are many of the existing vessels in the fleet. Most existing vessels lack the capacity to incorporate innovations and facilities that are available in newly constructed vessels. A vessel built to contemporary safety standards would likely incorporate advancements in marine design that improve efficiency.
As discussed in section 1.6.2 of the RIR, NMFS expects that this proposed action will not increase the fishing operations of C/Ps using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI or GOA. As described in this preamble, management constraints, such as Pacific cod species endorsements on LLP licenses, sector allocations for Pacific cod in the BSAI and GOA, and halibut PSC limits in the BSAI and GOA, limit the ability of vessels assigned these LLP licenses to expand their overall fishing operations in groundfish fisheries.
Specifically, these management measures in the BSAI and GOA provide an overall limit to the Pacific cod catch by vessels in this subsector, thereby limiting the potential for the C/P vessels endorsed for hook-and-line gear to
As noted earlier in this preamble, NMFS anticipates that the BSAI longline C/P subsector will continue to operate in the FLCC to coordinate Pacific cod harvests. This continued coordination promotes consistent harvesting practices by member vessels, including the newer and more efficient vessels entering the fishery. Moreover, NMFS does not anticipate rapid changes in the composition, quantity of vessels, or capacity of the BSAI longline C/P fleet in response to this proposed action, due to the costs and time required for construction of new vessels. Collectively, these factors indicate that the proposed action would not result in a modification of fishing behavior among FLCC members as they target Pacific cod or other groundfish species. While it is possible that FLCC members could expand participation in the Pacific cod pot fishery, this expansion is constrained by the proposed limitations on LLP licenses with Pacific cod hook-and-line and pot C/P endorsements as described above.
To implement Amendment 99, NMFS proposes to list the groundfish LLP licenses that would be modified by this action at Table 9 to part 679. As proposed, Table 9 to part 679 would list in Column A the 36 LLP licenses endorsed to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Table 9 would also differentiate between the LLP licenses that qualify for an increase in MLOA length to 220 feet (67 m), as designated in Column B, and the LLP license holders eligible for a one-time election to permanently surrender and extinguish certain LLP license endorsements in exchange for an increase in the MLOA to 220 feet (67 m), as listed in Column C.
NMFS proposes to revise the regulatory definition of Maximum LOA (MLOA) at § 679.2 and to establish regulatory provisions at § 679.4(k)(3)(i)(D) for a new MLOA category. Under this proposed provision, NMFS would revise MLOAs on the LLP licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679. If Amendment 99 and its implementing regulations are approved, 30 days following the publication of the final rule, the NMFS Restricted Access Management Division would issue new LLP licenses with an MLOA of 220 feet (67 m) to the holders of the eligible licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679. NMFS would revise only the MLOA of the LLP licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679, and not the area, gear, and operational type endorsements. The new LLP licenses would be mailed to the address provided to NMFS by the holder of the qualifying LLP license. NMFS would establish this revised definition of “Maximum LOA (MLOA)” at § 679.2 to ensure that all LLP licenses designated in Column B of Table 9 to part 679 would be revised on the effective date of the final rule, if approved. NMFS would not need to modify the definition of “Maximum LOA (MLOA)” at § 679.2 to apply to LLP licenses listed in Column C of Table 9 to part 679 because the MLOAs of those LLP licenses would only be modified after the submission of a written request from the holders of LLP licenses specified in Column C of Table 9 to part 679 under specific provisions described in the following paragraphs of this preamble.
NMFS proposes regulations at § 679.4(k)(3)(i)(D)(
NMFS proposes regulations at § 679.4(k)(6)(xi) to describe the requirements for holders of LLP licenses eligible to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector to surrender their Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements. If the Secretary approves Amendment 99 and its implementing regulations, NMFS would notify in writing the three LLP license holders listed in Column C of the proposed Table 9 to part 679 of their option to elect to surrender their Pacific cod pot gear C/P endorsements on their LLP license and receive a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA. Owners of eligible licenses, or their agents, would need to notify NMFS in writing at the address specified at § 679.4(k)(6)(xi) that they elect to surrender the endorsements. The request would need to include a signed statement notifying NMFS that the holder of the LLP license acknowledges that the election is permanent and irreversible and that all pot gear Pacific cod endorsements on that LLP would be extinguished. Each LLP license holder would have 36 months from the date of implementation of this proposed action to notify NMFS in writing of the one-time permanent election. If the written notification is received by NMFS within the 36 months
In order for a vessel to participate in a U.S. fishery, a vessel must obtain a certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement from either the U.S. Coast Guard or the Maritime Administration (MARAD), as set forth in regulations at 46 U.S.C. 12102(a) and 12151(b) The American Fisheries Act of 1998, as amended (AFA), Title II, Division C, Public Law 105–277, was enacted to increase U.S. citizen participation in U.S. fisheries. The AFA required the Maritime Administration to ensure compliance with the U.S. citizenship ownership and control requirements for U.S.-flag fishing industry vessels of 100 feet or greater in registered length. Therefore, a vessel 100 feet or greater in registered length must receive this documentation from MARAD.
The AFA and MARAD implementing regulations prohibit larger vessels from obtaining a fishery endorsement unless specific conditions are met. Unless an exemption applies, a vessel is not eligible for a fishery endorsement if it is greater than 165 feet in length, or more than 750 gross registered tons, or has engines capable of producing more than 3,000 shaft horsepower.
These regulations were intended to limit but not reduce fishing capacity in the BSAI; however, the regulations effectively limit the ability of vessel owners to replace vessels currently participating in the BSAI longline C/P subsector with newer vessels of an equivalent size. There are currently nine vessels named on LLP licenses eligible to participate within the BSAI longline C/P subsector that exceed at least one of the thresholds described at 46 CFR 356.47(a) and (c). These vessels are able to participate in the fishery because they received a fishery endorsement prior to September 25, 1997; however, the license holders could not replace vessels named on their LLP licenses with vessels of comparable or additional capacity and continue to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector because such vessels would not be eligible for a fishery endorsement.
An exemption from these regulations is possible if the owner of such a vessel demonstrates to MARAD that the regional fishery management council of jurisdiction, established under section 302(a)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has recommended after October 21, 1998, and the Secretary has approved, conservation and management measures in accordance with regulations implementing the AFA at 46 CFR 356.47, to allow vessels that may exceed the length, horsepower, and tonnage requirements to be used in fisheries under such council's authority. NMFS and MARAD General Counsel consulted to determine what action on the part of the Council and NMFS would satisfy this exemption. NMFS and MARAD General Counsel determined, based on the regulatory requirments established at 46 CFR 356.47(c), that the Council would need to recommend, and the Secretary would need to approve, conservation and management measures that would allow such a vessel to be used in the BSAI longline C/P subsector fisheries. The statutory vessel capacity restrictions are described in more detail in section 1.2.2 of the RIR for this action (See
If the Secretary approves Amendment 99 and issues a final rule to implement Amendment 99, the Secretary will have approved conservation and management measures that would permit a vessel to exceed the limits specified at 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) in order to participate in the BSAI longline C/P subsector. Secretarial approval of Amendment 99 and the publication of implementing regulations are intended to provide MARAD with documentation that eligible vessels qualify to receive a fishery endorsement. If the Secretary approves Amendment 99 and issues a final rule to implement Amendment 99, NMFS will notify MARAD that any vessel named on an LLP license endorsed for participation in the BSAI longline C/P subsector, which is greater than 165 feet in registered length, of more than 750 gross registered tons, or that has an engine or engines capable of producing a total of more than 3,000 shaft horsepower, is authorized for use in the EEZ under the jurisdiction of the Council, and is eligible to receive a certificate of documentation consistent with 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) and MARAD regulations at 46 CFR 356.47.
The proposed action would not change the monitoring and enforcement requirements for participants in the BSAI C/P longline subsector. As mentioned elsewhere in the this preamble, this proposed action would add a reporting requirement for the LLP licenses identified in the proposed Column C to Table 9 to part 679. The holders of these three LLP licenses would need to notify NMFS of their election to permanently surrender all pot Pacific cod endorsements in exchange for a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA.
Beginning in 2013, all vessels participating in the BSAI C/P longline subsector are required to follow a selected monitoring option, either carry two observers or carry one observer and use a NMFS-approved motion compensated flow scale, while directed fishing for Pacific cod is open in the BSAI or while CDQ groundfish fishing (77 FR 59053, September 26, 2012). A description of monitoring and enforcement regulations applicable to the BSAI C/P longline subsector is described in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule for these requirements (77 FR 35925, June 15, 2012) and is not repeated here.
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the BSAI and GOA FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On June 20, 2013, SBA issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $ 4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $ 4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million. Id. at 37400 (Table 1). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), codified at 5 U.S.C. 600–611, and prior to SBA's June 20 final rule, a certification was developed for this action using SBA's former size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the new size standards and has determined that the new size standards do not affect the analyses prepared for this action. NMFS solicits public comment on the analyses in light of the new size standards.
This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
The economic analysis contained in the RIR for this action (see
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.
Since there are no directly regulated small entities under this action within the definition of small entities used in the RFA, there are no economic impacts from this action on small entities.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control No. 0648–0334. Public reporting burden per response is estimated to be 2 hours for One-time Election to Permanently Surrender Pacific Cod Pot Gear Endorsement for the BSAI and GOA in Exchange for Receiving an LLP with an MLOA of 220 feet Authorizing Participation in the BSAI Pacific cod Longline C/P fisheries.
Public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to (enter office name) at the
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.
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(2) * * *
(v) The MLOA of a groundfish LLP license endorsed to catch and process Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear in the BS or AI, or both, and is designated in Column B of Table 9 to this part is 220 feet (67 m).
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D)
(
(6) * * *
(xi)
(A) The holder of the groundfish LLP license listed in Column C of Table 9 to this part requests, in writing, that NMFS permanently remove and extinguish all pot gear Pacific cod endorsements specified on that LLP license and acknowledges in that written request that the surrender and removal are permanent and irreversible and that all pot gear Pacific cod endorsements on that LLP license are extinguished;
(B) The holder of the groundfish LLP license listed in Column C of Table 9 to this part requests, in writing, that NMFS assign a 220-foot (67 m) MLOA on that LLP license;
(C) The holder of the eligible LLP license, or the authorized agent, signs the request;
(D) NMFS receives the written request to permanently remove and extinguish all pot gear Pacific cod endorsements specified on the LLP groundfish license by [
(E) The written request is submitted to NMFS using one of the following methods:
(
(
(
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to EPG Technologies, Inc. of Gainesville, Florida, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 8,004,292, “ELECTRICAL PENETRATION GRAPH SYSTEM,” issued on August 23, 2011.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4–1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301–504–5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as EPG Technologies, Inc. of Gainesville, Florida has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and proposed scope of study.
We are announcing to the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to examine the potential environmental effects of animal carcass management options used throughout the United States. This notice identifies potential alternatives and environmental effects that will be examined in the EIS and requests that the public comment on these proposed alternatives and environmental effects and identify other issues that could be examined in the EIS.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 25, 2013.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For questions related to the carcass management program, contact Ms. Lori P. Miller, PE, Senior Staff Officer, National Center for Animal Health Emergency Management, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3512. For questions related to the EIS, contact Ms. Samantha Floyd, Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental and Risk Analysis Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3053.
The Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301
Current Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations regarding carcass management, including those found in 9 CFR 53.4, are based on World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommendations and sound science. APHIS regulations specify that animals infected by or exposed to foot-and mouth disease, pleuropneumonia, rinderpest, and certain other communicable diseases of livestock or poultry are required to be disposed of by burial or burning, unless
To examine the potential environmental effects of animal carcass management options used throughout the United States, APHIS is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will analyze and compare all major and readily available mass carcass management options that may be utilized during an animal health emergency. APHIS is considering classifying mass carcass management as management of 50 tons or more of biomass per premises. In the EIS, we intend to compare unlined burial and open-air burning disposal methods with other available carcass management options. These may include composting (on- or off-site), rendering, landfills compliant with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other fixed facility options, such as incinerators compliant with the Clean Air Act, that could accommodate a large volume of carcasses over a short period of time.
The findings of the EIS will be used for planning and decisionmaking and to inform the public about the potential environmental effects of currently available carcass management options. Additionally, when mass carcass management options are utilized, site-specific environmental documents may be required. If such documents are needed, APHIS may use information presented and analyzed in the EIS, which will help APHIS to promptly fulfill its environmental compliance obligations when an emergency situation arises requiring immediate action.
We are requesting public comment to help us identify or confirm potential alternatives and environmental effects, as well as any other issues, that could and should be examined in the EIS. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
We have identified the following alternatives for further examination in the EIS:
We have identified the following potential environmental effects for examination in the EIS. We are requesting that the public comment on them during the scoping period:
• Effects on soil, air, and water quality.
• Effects on humans:
• Health and safety.
• Agricultural lands.
• Industries and the economy.
• Public perception.
• Cultural and historic resources.
• Effects on wildlife populations, including effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species.
• Effects on plant populations, including effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species.
Comments that identify other issues or alternatives that could be considered for examination in the EIS would be especially helpful. All comments received during the scoping period will be carefully considered in developing the final scope of the EIS. Upon completion of the draft EIS, a notice announcing its availability and an opportunity to comment on it will be published in the
7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Agricultural Surveys Program. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 24, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535–0213, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720–4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–2388.
These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Aquaculture Surveys. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 24, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535–0150, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Joseph T. Reilly, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720–4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–2388.
• Twenty-five States are in the Trout Production Survey. In January, data are collected in the selected states that produce and either sell or distribute trout. State, federal, tribal, and other facilities where trout are raised for conservation, restoration, or recreational purposes are included in the survey.
• Nine States are in the Catfish Production Survey. Data are collected from farmers in January for inventory, water surface acreage, and previous year sales. In addition, farmers in the three major catfish producing States are surveyed in July for mid-year inventory and water surface acreage.
• All catfish processing plants, with the capacity to process 2,000 pounds of live weight per 8 hour shift are in the Catfish Processing Survey. Plants are surveyed monthly for amount purchased, prices paid, amount sold,
• Nine catfish millers are surveyed monthly for the amount of feed delivered for foodsize fish, fingerlings, and broodfish.
These data will be collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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:
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the City of New York, grantee of FTZ 1 and 111, requesting authority to reorganize under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) and merge FTZ 1 and FTZ 111 under FTZ 1. The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on October 21, 2013.
FTZ 1 was approved by the FTZ Board on January 30, 1936 (Board Order 2) and reorganized/expanded on February 23, 1942 (Board Order 7, 7 FR 2074, 3/14/1942), March 23, 1942 (Board Order 8, 7 FR 2883, 4/17/1942), June 23, 1943 (Board Order 9, 8 FR 8885, 6/29/1943), November 18, 1943 (Board Order 10, 9 FR 1917, 2/18/1944), December 12, 1945 (Board Order 11, 10 FR 15190, 12/19/1945), October 17, 1946 (Board Order 14, 11 FR 12588, 10/25/1947), August 25, 1950 (Board Order 23, 15 FR 5920, 8/31/1950), October 16, 1951 (Board Order 26, 16 FR 10829, 10/24/1951), May 19, 1967 (Board Order 73, 32 FR 7726, 5/26/1967), September 26, 1972 (Board Order 89, 37 FR 20893, 10/4/1972), June 27, 1974 (Board Order 99, 39 FR 24541, 7/3/1974), September 25, 1978 (Board Order 134, 43 FR 45424, 10/2/1978), and November 16, 1998 (Board Order 1010, 63 FR 65171, 11/25/1998).
FTZ 1 currently includes the following sites:
FTZ 111 was approved by the FTZ Board on November 30, 1984 (Board Order 280, 49 FR 48203, 12/11/1984). FTZ 111 currently consists of one site:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties, New York, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the New York/Newark and John F. Kennedy International Airport Customs and Border Protection ports of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize the zones under the ASF, to merge FTZ 1 and FTZ 111, and to include Sites 1–3 and 5 of FTZ 1 and Site 1 of FTZ 111 as “magnet” sites. The applicant is also requesting that Site 4 of FTZ 1 be included as a “usage-driven site” and that Site 1 of FTZ 111 be renumbered as Site 6 of FTZ 1 in the merged zone. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 of FTZ 1 be so exempted.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
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 December 24, 2013. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 8, 2014.
A copy of the application 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
International Trade Administration, DOC.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held in Room 4830 at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Ms. Maureen Hinman, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202–482–0627; Fax: 202–482–5665; email:
The meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST. The general meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment from 3:00–3:30 p.m. EST. Those interested in attending must provide notification by Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. EST, via the contact information provided above. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome any time before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting to discuss the work the Council will focus on for the remainder of its term. At the meeting, the Council will hear updates from its four subcommittees on workforce development and public perception of manufacturing; manufacturing energy policy; tax policy and export growth; and innovation, research and development. The Council will discuss current workforce development efforts by the federal government, the importance of alternative energy technologies for manufacturers, the effects of current tax policies on manufacturers, and the importance of continued research and development for the manufacturing industry. A final agenda will be available on the Council's Web site one week prior to the meeting. The Council was re-chartered on April 5, 2012, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on government programs and policies that affect U.S. manufacturing and provide a means of ensuring regular contact between the U.S. Government and the manufacturing sector.
November 13, 2013, 9 a.m.–12 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST).
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Americas—Houston, 1600 Lamar Street, Houston, TX 77010 in the Lanier Grand Ballroom. Due to building security, all attendees must pre-register. This meeting will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation, other auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than November 6, 2013, to Elizabeth Emanuel, the Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202–482–1369,
Elizabeth Emanuel, the Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202–482–1369, email:
A limited amount of time, from 11:30–12, will be made available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Emanuel and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Thursday, November 7, 2013. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 25 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the members of the Manufacturing Council and to the public at the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Manufacturing Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Elizabeth Emanuel, the Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202–482–1369, email:
Copies of Council meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks comments on draft NISTIR 7628 Rev. 1,
Comments must be received by December 24, 2013.
Please submit your comments, using the comment template forms available electronically from the NIST Web site at:
Electronic comments should be sent to:
Draft NISTIR 7628 Rev. 1, Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security, is available electronically from the NIST Web site at:
Tanya Brewer, telephone: 301–975–4534, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8930 or via email:
Section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) (Pub. L. 110–140) requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) “to coordinate the development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards for information management to achieve interoperability of smart grid devices and systems.” EISA also specifies in Section 1301 that, “It is the policy of the United States to support the modernization of the Nation's electricity transmission and distribution system to maintain a reliable and secure electricity infrastructure that can meet future demand growth and to achieve each of the following, which together characterize a Smart Grid:
(1) Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of the electric grid.
(2) Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources, with full cyber-security. . . .”
With the transition to the Smart Grid—the ongoing transformation of the nation's electric system to a two-way flow of electricity and information—the information technology (IT) and telecommunications infrastructures have become critical to the energy sector infrastructure.
NISTIR 7628 was first drafted in 2009 by NIST staff and industry technical experts. NIST published a Request for Comments in the
NISTIR 7628 has been utilized by a variety of stakeholders including utilities, Smart Grid vendors and service providers, and regulatory organizations since its initial publication. Additionally, emerging Smart Grid technologies have matured since the initial publication and are being considered in this revision.
Draft NISTIR 7628 Rev. 1 was completed by the NIST-led Smart Grid Cybersecurity Committee (formerly the Cyber Security Working Group) of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel. This document incorporates updates to address changes in technologies and implementations since the release of NISTIR 7628 in September 2010. In addition, this document updates and expands the development strategy, cryptography and key management, privacy, vulnerability classes, research and development topics, standards review, and key power system use cases to reflect changes in the Smart Grid environment since 2010. The final version is expected to be posted in the fall of 2013.
• Chapter 1, Document Development Strategy, was updated to reflect progress and completion of previously outstanding issues and remaining tasks, including a new section addressing cyber-physical attacks.
• Chapter 2, Logical Architecture and Interfaces of the Smart Grid, was updated to address feedback from the SGIP Smart Grid Architecture Committee and includes an expanded section on defense-in-depth security.
• Chapter 3, High-Level Security Requirements, was updated to include additional background information on selection of security requirements, and includes a revised Crosswalk of Cyber Security Documents.
• Chapter 4, Cryptography and Key Management, was updated to reflect the recommended transition lifetimes for cryptographic algorithms and key lengths in NIST Special Publication 800–131 A,
• Chapter 5, Privacy and the Smart Grid, has been updated to reflect changes in the regulatory and legislative areas regarding Smart Grid. The update also addresses emerging Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) technologies and associated privacy concerns, an expanded Appendix of privacy use cases, a new Appendix summarizing how two states (California and Colorado) arrived at their respective privacy-related regulations, and a new Appendix containing recommendations for how third parties should handle consumer energy usage data.
• Chapter 6, Vulnerability Classes, has been updated to incorporate changes in technologies since the original publication.
• Chapter 8, Research and Development Themes for Cyber Security in the Smart Grid, has been updated to incorporate changes in technologies since the original publication.
• Chapter 9, Overview of the Standards Review, has been updated to reflect the SGCC review and analysis methodology of Smart Grid standards against the high-level security requirements of NISTIR 7628.
• Chapter 10, Key Power System Use Cases for Security Requirements has been updated to include more granular use case scenarios in the area of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure.
• A number of editorial changes that do not have substantive impact on the document to improve readability, update references, and standardize writing style.
NIST seeks public comments on draft NISTIR 7628, Rev. 1, Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security; particularly on the changes made since the originally published version. The draft report is available electronically from the NIST Web site at:
Interested parties should submit comments in accordance with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Socioeconomic Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).
The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. Until 5 p.m. on Friday, November 8, 2013.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.
Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630; fax: (813) 348–1711; email:
The items for discussion on the meeting agenda are as follows:
For meeting materials, call (813) 348–1630.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice to advise the public of periodic updates to tidal datums due to the adoption of modified procedures for computation of accepted tidal datums in areas of anomalous relative sea-level trends using a 5 year time period for determination of tide level datums.
NOAA has typically updated tidal datum elevations for the nation to new National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE) time periods every 20–25 years. Updates are necessary due to long-term sea level change. In 1998, NOS recognized the need for a modified procedure for determination of tidal datums for regions with anomalously high rates of relative sea level change. This modified procedure is necessary at selected stations to ensure that the tidal datums accurately represent the existing stand of sea level.
The procedure is limited only to those stations in areas with high rates of vertical land motion that have documented anomalous relative sea level trends exceeding 9.0 millimeters per year. Sea level analyses in these anomalous regions are conducted approximately every 5 years to determine if the mean sea level difference exceeds the established threshold tolerances in order to qualify for a special update. Anomalous relative sea level trends are seen along the western Gulf Coast, southeast Alaska, and southern Cook Inlet, AK. For example, the magnitude of the sea level trends in these areas is +9.24 millimeters per year in Grand Isle, LA; –12.92 millimeters per year in Juneau, AK; and –9.45 millimeters per year in Seldovia, AK.
This procedure is necessary to provide the most accurate information available for applications that are essential to supporting Federal, State and private sector coastal zone activities, including hydrographic surveys and coastal mapping, navigational safety, wetland restoration, marine boundary determinations, coastal engineering, storm warnings and hazard mitigation, emergency management, and hydrodynamic modeling.
While maintaining the 19 year NTDE computational period for tidal mean range and diurnal range, a shorter more recent 5 year computational period is used to compute the mean tide level datums to better reflect the current elevation of mean sea level relative to the land. Consequently, tidal datums at stations exhibiting anomalous trends are computed from mean sea level, diurnal tide level and mean tide level values for the most recent 5 year time period, and tidal ranges (GT and MN) based on the most recent full 19 year NTDE at stations.
The average absolute difference between 19 year NTDE time periods across the nation of 0.03 meters (0.10
Visit the Web site (
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 8/9/2013 (78 FR 48656–48657), 8/16/2013 (78 FR 50040), and 8/23/2013 (78 FR 52512–52513), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services previously provided by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entity of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following product and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, November 22, 2013.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date and location of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Melissa D. Jurgens, 202–418–5516.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, November 1, 2013.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Melissa D. Jurgens, 202–418–5516.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, November 15, 2013.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date and location of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Melissa D. Jurgens, 202–418–5516.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
10:00 a.m., Friday, November 8, 2013.
1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and Examinations. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date and location of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Melissa D. Jurgens, 202–418–5516.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013, 10 a.m.–12 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live Web cast of the meeting can be viewed at
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.
Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salons B–C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in
The Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681–6653, Fax: (703) 681–9539,
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, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of Public Law. Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site,
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 24, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the US Army Public Health Command, 5158 Blackhawk Road, ATTN: Chris Weir, MCHB–CS–PMO, Building E1930, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21020–5403, or call the Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 428–6440.
The Army Regulation 40–5, Preventive Medicine, designates the US Army Public Health Command (USAPHC) and the Army Institute of Public Health (AIPH) as the Army's public health authority. The data will only be available to those within the USAPHC and AIPH with a need to know. Those individuals will use the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including, but not limited to, the reporting of disease, injury, vital events, such as births or death, and the conduct of public health surveillance, public health investigations, and public health interventions. The information collection will be maintained electronically and solely within the local area network of the USAPHC and AIPH.
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army (OAA–RPA), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 24, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, 709 Ward Drive, Bldg. 1990,
DD Form 361 is essential for documenting any loss, damage, or other discrepancy, which may result from the movement of Government freight by commercial transportation companies (carries). As insurers of goods transported under the bill of lading contract carriers are responsible to the extent provided by law, for the delivery of goods as tendered by or for the Government.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
On September 20, 2013, the Department of the Navy (DoN) published a notice in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Attn: Code EV21/CZ (P–8A SEIS Project Manager), 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508–1278.
1. Thursday, November 7, 2013 at Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, 620 Wells Road, Orange Park, Florida 32073.
2. Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at North Whidbey Middle School, 67 NE Izett Street, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277.
Federal, state, and local agencies and officials, and interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide comments in person at the public meetings or in writing anytime during the public comment period. At the public meetings, attendees will be able to submit comments in writing or orally using a stenographer who will listen to and transcribe comments. Comments may also be submitted via the U.S. Postal Service to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Attn: Code EV21/CZ (P–8A SEIS Project Manager), 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508–1278 or electronically via the project Web site (
All statements submitted during the public review period will be given equal weight, whether they are received orally at the public meetings or submitted in writing at the public meetings, via the U.S. Postal Service, or electronically via the public Web site. All comments received will become part of the public record on the Draft SEIS and be responded to in the Final SEIS. All written comments must be postmarked or received online by December 2, 2013 to ensure they become part of the official record.
Copies of the Draft SEIS are available for public review at the following libraries:
1. Oak Harbor City Library, 1000 SE Regatta Drive, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277.
2. Anacortes Public Library, 1220 10th Street, Anacortes, Washington 98221.
3. La Conner Regional Library, 614 Morris Street, La Conner, Washington 98257.
4. Coupeville Library, 788 NW Alexander Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239.
5. Coronado Public Library, 640 Orange Avenue, Coronado, California 92118.
6. Webb-Wesconnett Regional Branch, Jacksonville Public Library, 6887 103rd Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32210.
7. Kaneohe Public Library, 45–829 Kamehameha Highway, Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744.
Copies of the Draft SEIS are also available for electronic viewing or download at
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DoN), after carefully weighing the strategic operational and environmental consequences of the proposed action, announces its decision to expand the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division's (NSWCDD) outdoor research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) activities within the Potomac River Test Range (PRTR) complex, the Explosives Experimental Area range complex, the Mission Area, and special-use airspace at Naval Support Facility Dahlgren. These activities include outdoor operations that require the use of ordnance (guns and explosives), electromagnetic energy, high energy lasers, chemical and biological simulants (non-toxic substances used to mimic dangerous agents), and PRTR use. The DoN has decided to implement the preferred alternative, Alternative 2, which will enable NSWCDD to meet current and future mission-related warfare and force-protection requirements by providing RDT&E of surface ship combat systems, ordnance, lasers and directed energy systems, force-level warfare, and homeland and force protection.
The complete text of the Record of Decision (ROD) is available on the project Web site at
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be used in the 2014 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment Report is available for review and comment.
Comments on the assessment methodology or recommendations for the consideration of data sets must be received in writing by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on December 31, 2013.
Comments will be accepted
Mr. John Yagecic, Supervisor, Standards and Assessment Section, DRBC Modeling, Monitoring and Assessment Branch,
The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is an interstate and federal compact agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
DRBC currently is compiling data for the
The assessment methodology to be used in the 2014 Assessment is available for review at the following url:
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 24, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kate Mullan, 202–401–0563 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 25, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Kate Mullan, 202–401–0563 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The Department is requesting that sections 34 CFR 668.23 and 668.24 which are currently in 1845–0038 be removed and the corresponding 1,260 hours be transferred to 1845–0022. These two sections are not included in Subpart K and are more appropriately a part of 1845–0022. We believe that during the transfer of the information collections from the Office of Postsecondary Education to Federal Student Aid that the regulatory sub sections were incorrectly included in this package.
Additionally, the Department is requesting the removal of the 1,750 burden hours currently attributed to 34 CFR 668.167 FFEL Program funds. This is due to the authority to make new Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program being terminated as of July 1, 2010 as a result of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) that was included in the Health Care and Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA).
Department of Education.
Correction Notice.
On October 3, 2013 the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Department of Education.
Correction notice.
On October 3, 2013 the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
On October 11, 2013, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (Enable) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Sections 157.205 and 157.208(f)(2) of the Commission's regulations and Enable's authorization in Docket Nos. CP82–384–000, 20 FERC ¶ 62,408 (1982) and CP82–384–001, 22 FERC 61,148 (1983), to decrease the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of an existing lateral located in Crittenden County, Arkansas. As explained in the application, Enable proposes to decrease the MAOP of Line JM–34 from 680 psig to 460 psig.
Questions regarding this application may be directed to B. Michelle Willis, Manager-Regulatory & Compliance, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151 or by calling 318–429–3708.
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review (NSER). If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a NSER will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such motions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant, on or before the comment date. It is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC–547, Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by November 25, 2013.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902–0084, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC13–18–000, by either of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's Web site:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the data to monitor refunds owed by natural gas companies to ensure that the flow-through of refunds owed by these companies are made as expeditiously as possible and to assure that refunds are made in compliance with the Commission's regulations.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $57,750. [825 hours * $70/hour
Take notice that during the month of September 2013, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
On September 13, 2013, the Commission issued a notice setting October 15, 2013, as the date to file comments regarding the Gallery 2 Expansion Project Environmental Assessment. Because of the limited funding to federal programs and resources between October 1 and 16, 2013, the Commission is reopening the comment period to allow affected agencies and others the opportunity to comment. This reopened comment period now expires on November 1, 2013.
Take notice that on October 11, 2013, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in Docket No. CP14–5–000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). National Fuel seeks authorization to abandon an injection/withdrawal well in Boone Mountain Storage Field in Elk County, Pennsylvania and 25 feet of associated pipeline. National Fuel states that the abandonment is necessary due to the well's poor performance and excessive cost of rehabilitation, and that the abandonment will have no impact on its existing customers or its storage operations, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to David W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel for National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call (716) 857–7949.
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Take notice that on October 9, 2013, Enable Bakken Crude Services, LLC requested waiver of the verified statement requirements under 18 CFR 342.4(c) that would otherwise require a verified statement in support of initial committed rates, or subsequent contractual adjustments to those rates, filed pursuant to the declaratory order framework approved in Docket No. OR13–21.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 25, 2013.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed administrative settlements and opportunity for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of three proposed Administrative Settlement Agreements for Recovery of Past Response Costs (“Agreements”) pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, with (1) RJS Corp.; (2) Your Factory Warehouse, Inc., Douglas Marino and Mark Marino; and (3) A&S Corporation and Marie Andre (“Settling Parties”). The Settling Parties are potentially responsible parties, pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, and thus are potentially liable for response costs incurred at or in connection with the Truckers Warehouse Site (“Site”), located in Passaic, Passaic County, New Jersey. Under the Agreements, the Settling Parties agree to pay a total of $108,748.20 to EPA for past response costs. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Agreements if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed Agreements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Comments must be provided by November 25, 2013.
The Agreements are available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866. Comments should reference the Truckers Warehouse Site, located in Passaic, Passaic County, New Jersey, Index Nos. CERCLA–02–2013–2019, 02–2013–2028 and 02–2013–2029. To request a copy of the Agreements, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
Gerard Burke, Assistant Regional Counsel, New Jersey Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866. Telephone: 212–637–3120, email at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and the Board's Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238) to acquire shares of a savings and loan holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 12, 2013.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105–1521:
1.
2.
In accordance with Section 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on September 17–18, 2013.
“Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for reinstatement of a previously-approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0937–0191, which expired on May 31, 2011. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 0937–0191 and document identifier HHS–OS–20215–30D for reference.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for renewal of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0937–0025, scheduled to expire on October 31, 2013. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 0937–0025 and document identifier HHS–OS–20521–30D for reference.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990–0162, which expires on January 31, 2014. Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 24, 2013.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS–OS–20694–60D for reference.
Under section 1903(q)(7), each MFCU must annually submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) an application and annual report containing information that the Secretary determines is necessary to certify the MFCU as meeting the requirements for FFP. FFP is available only for activities directly related to the investigation and prosecution of health care providers suspected of committing Medicaid fraud. The MFCUs also review complaints of alleged abuse or neglect of patients and the misuse of patients' personal funds in health care facilities. OIG reviews the information collected to ensure that Federal matching funds are expended by MFCUs only for allowable costs. In addition, OIG analyzes each MFCU's submission to determine whether there is a need for OIG technical assistance and to establish priorities for onsite reviews to further monitor program activities.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Notice of availability for public comments.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services announces the availability of the interaction profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-
The interaction profile was made available to the public on September 2, 2013. The comment period will end on December 2, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR–2012–0002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Hana Pohl, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Mailstop F–57, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (888) 422–8737.
ATSDR develops interaction profiles for hazardous substances found at the National Priority List (NPL) sites under Section 104(i)(3) and (5) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This law requires that ATSDR assess whether or not adequate information on health effects is available for priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a research program to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that, where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of these priority hazardous substances in combination with other substances commonly found with them.
To carry out these legislative mandates, ATSDR has developed a chemical mixtures program and guidance manual that outlines the latest methods for mixtures health assessment. In addition, a series of documents called “interaction profiles” is developed for certain priority mixtures that are of special concern to ATSDR. To recommend approaches for the exposure-based assessment of the potential hazard to public health, an interaction profile evaluates data on the toxicology of the whole priority mixture, if available, and on the joint toxic action of the chemicals in the mixture.
The entire interaction profile development process is as follows:
• ATSDR selects substances/chemicals for development of interaction profiles through inter/intra agency communications collaboration and literature reviews.
• After the selection, a letter is sent to individuals and agencies on ATSDR's mailing list providing notice of ATSDR's intent to create an interaction profile.
• A notice is posted in the
• The draft interaction profile undergoes both internal and external peer review.
• A
• ATSDR posts a link to the draft interaction profile on its Web site, giving the public an opportunity to provide comments.
• ATSDR reviews all public comments and revises the draft, as appropriate, before issuing the final version.
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772–76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 78 FR 58309, dated September 23, 2013) is amended to reorganize the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response.
Section C–B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Revise the functional statement for the Office of the Director (CGC1), Division of State and Local Readiness (CGC), as follows:
Office of the Director (CGC1). (1) Provides national leadership and guidance that supports and advances the work of state, local, tribal and territorial public health emergency preparedness programs; (2) coordinates the development of scientific guidelines and standards for programmatic materials within the division to provide technical assistance and program planning at the state, local, tribal, and territorial level; (3) works with awardees to advance state and local preparedness efforts through placement of CDC field staff within state and local public health agencies; (4) represents the interests and needs of the state, local, tribal, and territorial interests on state and local preparedness; (5) develops and ensures effective partnerships with national stakeholders and preparedness partners; and (6) provides oversight and management of division contracts, technical assistance plan development, training needs, response activities, grantee awards and fiscal accountability, and research agenda development and compliance.
After the title and function statement for the Applied Science and Evaluation Branch (CGCC), Division of State and Local Readiness (CGC), insert the following:
Field Services Branch (CGCD). (1) Provides scientific participation in development and implementation of field-based science initiatives and strategies; (2) provides situational awareness to CDC leadership when activated for public health responses; (3) provides consultation and technical assistance to state, territorial, tribal and local health departments in developing, implementing and evaluating Public Health Preparedness and Response activities and performance in support of CDC recommendations and those of their host site; (4) provides support for public health preparedness and epidemiologic capacity at the state, territorial, tribal, and local levels; (5) contributes as leaders in preparedness and epidemiology for issues including clinical surge capacity, hospital preparedness, and influenza response planning; (6) participates in development of national preparedness and response policies and guidelines for public health emergencies and encourages and facilitates the transfer of guidelines into clinical and public health practice; (7) analyzes data to assess progress toward achieving program objectives and provides input for program management and evaluation reports for publications; (8) participates in the development of comprehensive evaluation methods for OPHPR programs; (9) serves as liaison or focal point to assist state, territorial, tribal and local partners in linking with
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by November 25, 2013.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:
OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–6974,
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Joint Commission for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for Home Health Agencies (HHAs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires that within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, CMS publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on November 24, 2013.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS–3286–PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways:
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Lillian Williams, (410) 786–8636, Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786–6899, or Monda Shaver, (410) 786–3410.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an HHA provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1861(o) and 1891 of the Social Security Act (the Act), establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an HHA. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 484 specify the minimum conditions that an HHA must meet to participate in the Medicare program.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, an HHA must first be certified by a state survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 484 of our regulations. Thereafter, the HHA is subject to regular surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by state agencies.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide us with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.4 and § 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at § 488.8(d)(3) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by us.
The Joint Commission's current term of approval for their HHA accreditation program expires March 31, 2014.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8(a) require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of the Joint Commission's request for continued approval of its HHA accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether the Joint Commission's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation (CoPs) for HHAs.
The Joint Commission submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its HHA accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on August 30, 2013. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.8 (Federal review of accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of the Joint Commission will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of the Joint Commission's standards for HHA's as compared with CMS' HHA CoPs.
• The Joint Commission's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of the Joint Commission's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ The Joint Commission's processes and procedures for monitoring an HHA found out of compliance with the Joint Commission's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the Joint Commission identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).
++ The Joint Commission's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ The Joint Commission's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of the Joint Commission's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ The Joint Commission's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ The Joint Commission's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ The Joint Commission's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program; No. 93.773 Medicare—Hospital Insurance Program; and No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the request for nominations for membership on the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC). Among other duties, the MEDCAC provides advice and guidance to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concerning the adequacy of scientific evidence available to CMS for “reasonable and necessary” determinations under Medicare.
We are requesting nominations for both voting and nonvoting members to serve on the MEDCAC. Nominees are selected based upon their individual qualifications and not as representatives of professional associations or societies. We wish to ensure adequate representation of the interests of both women and men, members of all ethnic groups and physically challenged individuals. Therefore, we encourage nominations of qualified candidates who can represent these interests.
The MEDCAC reviews and evaluates medical literature, technology assessments, and hears public testimony on the evidence available to address the impact of medical items and services on health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries.
Nominations must be received by Monday, December 9, 2013.
You may mail nominations for membership to the following address: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Attention: Maria Ellis, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop: S3–02–01, Baltimore, MD 21244.
Maria Ellis, Executive Secretary for the MEDCAC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Coverage and Analysis Group, S3–02–01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244 or contact Ms. Ellis by phone (410–786–0309) or via email at
The Secretary signed the initial charter for the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC) on November 24, 1998. A notice in the
The MEDCAC is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formulation and use of advisory committees, and is authorized by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 217A).
The MEDCAC consists of a pool of 100 appointed members including: 94 voting members of whom 6 are designated patient advocates, and 6 nonvoting representatives of industry interests. Members generally are recognized authorities in clinical medicine including subspecialties, administrative medicine, public health, biological and physical sciences, epidemiology and biostatistics, clinical trial design, health care data management and analysis, patient advocacy, health care economics,
The MEDCAC works from an agenda provided by the Designated Federal Official. The MEDCAC reviews and evaluates medical literature, technology assessments, and hears public testimony on the evidence available to address the impact of medical items and services on health outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries. The MEDCAC may also advise Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of Medicare's “coverage with evidence development” initiative.
As of June 2014, there will be 30 membership terms expiring. Of the 30 memberships expiring, 1 is nonvoting industry representative, 3 are voting patient advocates and the remaining 26 membership openings are for the general MEDCAC voting membership.
Accordingly, we are requesting nominations for both voting and nonvoting members to serve on the MEDCAC. Nominees are selected based upon their individual qualifications and not as representatives of professional associations or societies. We wish to ensure adequate representation of the interests of both women and men, members of all ethnic groups and physically challenged individuals. Therefore, we encourage nominations of qualified candidates from these groups.
All nominations must be accompanied by curricula vitae. Nomination packages must be sent to Maria Ellis at the address listed in the
We are looking particularly for experts in a number of fields. These include cancer screening, genetic testing, clinical epidemiology; psychopharmacology; screening and diagnostic testing analysis; and vascular surgery. We also need experts in biostatistics in clinical settings, dementia treatment, minority health, observational research design, stroke epidemiology, and women's health.
The nomination letter must include a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the MEDCAC and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. We are requesting that all curricula vitae include the following:
Members are invited to serve for overlapping 2-year terms. A member may serve after the expiration of the member's term until a successor is named. Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified persons. Self-nominations are also accepted. The current Secretary's Charter for the MEDCAC is available on the CMS Web site at:
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2).
PACT is utilizing three major, interrelated evaluation strategies: Impact evaluation; implementation evaluation; and qualitative evaluation. To collect data for these strategies, eighteen instruments have been approved to-date. This 30-Day
A more thorough description of the study and instruments was provided in a 60 Day
This current 30-Day
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research/Office of Medical Policy and the Duke University Office of Continuing Medical Education are cosponsoring a 3-day training course for clinical investigators on scientific, ethical, and regulatory aspects of clinical trials. This training course is intended to provide clinical investigators with expertise in the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials; improve the quality of clinical trials; and enhance the safety of trial participants. Senior FDA staff will communicate directly with clinical investigators on issues of greatest importance for successful clinical research.
Register online for the training course at the registration Web site:
Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. A block of rooms has been reserved under “FDA Clinical Investigator Course” at the Holiday Inn College Park at a reduced conference rate. Reservations for these accommodations can be made online using the course registration Web site mentioned previously. Click on “registration form.” You will see a direct link to the hotel.
Registration materials, payment procedures, accommodation information, and a detailed description of the course can be found at the registration/information Web site mentioned previously.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Connie Wisner (see
Clinical trial investigators play a critical role in the development of medical products. They bear the responsibility for ensuring the safe and ethical treatment of study subjects and for acquiring adequate and reliable data to support regulatory decisions. This course is intended to assist clinical investigators in understanding what preclinical and clinical information is needed to support the investigational use of medical products, as well as the scientific, regulatory, and ethical considerations involved in the conduct
The training course is designed to provide clinical investigators with an overview of the following information:
• The essential toxicological, pharmacological, and manufacturing data to support investigational use in humans;
• Fundamental issues in the design and conduct of clinical trials;
• Statistical and analytic considerations in the interpretation of trial data;
• Appropriate safety evaluation during studies; and
• The ethical considerations and regulatory requirements for clinical trials.
In addition, the course should accomplish the following:
• Foster a cadre of clinical investigators with knowledge, experience, and commitment to investigational medicine;
• Promote communication between clinical investigators and FDA;
• Enhance investigators' understanding of FDA's role in experimental medicine; and
• Improve the quality of data while enhancing subject protection in the performance of clinical trials.
The course will be conducted over 3 days and comprised of approximately 26 lectures, each lasting between 30 and 45 minutes. The course will be presented mainly by senior FDA staff, with guest lecturers presenting selected topics.
The course will address FDA's role in clinical studies, regulatory considerations for clinical trials, and review of the material generally appearing in an “investigator's brochure,” i.e., the preclinical information (toxicology, animal studies, and chemistry/manufacturing information) that supports initial clinical trials in humans. Presenters will discuss the role of clinical pharmacology in early clinical studies and how this information is used in the design of subsequent studies. The course will also include discussions of scientific, statistical, ethical, and regulatory aspects of clinical studies. On November 14, 2013, participants will choose among three breakout sessions that will explain how to put together an application to FDA for drugs, biologics, or devices.
The course is targeted toward health care professionals responsible for, or involved in, the conduct and/or design of clinical trials.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of a nonvoting industry representative to represent the interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee for the Center for Tobacco Products, notify FDA in writing. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for upcoming vacancy effective with this notice. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent the interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry must send a letter stating the interest to FDA by November 25, 2013, for the vacancy listed in this notice. Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by November 25, 2013.
All letters of interest and nominations should be submitted in writing to
Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,1–877–287–1373 (choose Option 5), FAX: 240–276–3655, email:
The Agency requests nominations for a nonvoting industry representative on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee to represent the interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry.
The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee) advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to the regulation of tobacco products. The Committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information and recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee includes three nonvoting members who represent industry interests. These members include one representative of the tobacco manufacturing industry, one representative of the interests of tobacco growers, and one representative of the interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry. The representative of the interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry may be filled on a rotating basis by representatives of different small business tobacco manufacturers based on areas of expertise relevant to the topics being considered by the Committee.
With this notice, nominations are sought for one representative of the interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry, and an alternate to this representative.
Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see
Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA contact person (see
FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups. Specifically, in this document, nominations for nonvoting representatives of industry interests are encouraged from the tobacco manufacturing industry.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Final notice.
Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 (Ryan White Program or RWHAP), requires that grantees expend 75 percent of Parts A, B, and C funds on core medical services, including antiretroviral drugs, for individuals with HIV/AIDS identified and eligible under the statute. The statute also grants the Secretary authority to waive this requirement if there are no waiting lists for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and core medical services are available to all individuals identified and eligible under Title XXVI in an applicant's state, jurisdiction, or service area, as applicable.
The requirements for submitting an application to waive the statutory requirement that a grantee spend at least 75 percent of its funds on core medical were previously outlined in HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) Policy Notice 08–02. On May 24, 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) published a Final Notice with Opportunity to Comment in the
The policy will become effective on September 23, 2013.
HRSA received several comments on the waiver application process published in the
Several commenters suggested that the application process and the documentation required to apply for a waiver was burdensome, especially for grantees with limited administrative staff to respond to the waiver requirements. HRSA believes that the application process and the documentation required are necessary for the agency to understand the availability of core medical services in the applicant's state, jurisdiction, or service area, as applicable. This required documentation is intended to provide HRSA with sufficient information to make an informed decision on each waiver request and to understand the availability of core medical services in a grantee's state, jurisdiction, or service area, as applicable. Further, the requirements are similar to those under the previous policy. Waiver applicants under the previous policy were expected to provide adequate documentation, which may have included additional data, supporting letters, and other information that justified the need for the waiver. As such, HRSA is only clarifying what documentation is necessary to meet each requirement in the application. This will ensure that the applicant provides adequate documentation to demonstrate the need for a waiver of the core medical services requirement
Under the previous policy, letters from Medicaid directors and other State and local HIV/AIDS entitlement and benefits programs, which may include private insurers, were optional. Under this revision, item #2(c) of the policy now requires the submission of documentation regarding the availability of relevant services, and lists examples of the types of programs that may provide documentation, including private insurers. Specific to this requirement, several commenters suggested that letters from private insurers would be burdensome to provide. HRSA wishes to clarify that letters from private insurers are not required; these entities are only listed to provide an example of a type of entitlement and benefit provider. Other types of entitlement and benefit providers might include local foundations that provide funding for medical care to low-income HIV patients or a county or state sponsored drug-assistance program. As part of their application, grantees must provide letters from the state Medicaid Director and relevant HIV/AIDS entitlement and benefits programs available in their state, jurisdiction, or service area, as
Several commenters pointed out that it would be burdensome for grantees to conduct a separate public process around the annual waiver application. HRSA wishes to clarify that while a grantee may conduct a separate public process around the waiver application, they are not required to do so. Grantees must seek feedback on their waiver application from the public, but may do so through any public process that the grantee already uses, including those that are used to obtain input on community needs as part of the annual priority setting and resource allocation, comprehensive planning, Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need, public planning, and/or needs assessment process. This requirement has not changed from the previous policy.
Another commenter requested that HRSA not include the waiver attachments and documentation requirements as part of the application's 10-page limit listed in requirement #4. HRSA wishes to clarify that the page limit only applies to the narrative section described in requirement #4. The documentation required by the other sections does not count towards the page limit outlined in the policy.
Another commenter mentioned concern regarding “outreach and linkage of HIV-positive individuals not currently in care” being considered a non-core service in the requirement #4(c) of the policy. The commenter indicated that outreach and linkage to care fell under early intervention services, and as such should not be considered a non-core service. HRSA wishes to clarify that section #4(c) of the policy is specifically referring to outreach and linkage to care as a support service, not early intervention services, which, as the commenter mentioned, are core medical services. In 42 U.S.C. 300ff–14(d)(1), 300ff–22(c)(1), 300ff–51(d)(1), outreach services are identified as support services. In addition, HAB policy 12–01 identifies outreach services as a service “which has as their principal purpose targeting activities, under specific needs assessment-based service categories that can identify individuals with HIV disease. This includes those who know their HIV status and are not in care as well as those individuals who are unaware of their HIV status, so that they become aware of the availability of HIV-related services and enroll in primary care, AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, and support services that enable them to remain in care.”
Another commenter suggested that the requirement that all core services be available within 30 days is not reasonable. Access to routine medical and preventive care services within 30 days has been cited as an example of a reasonable availability standard for Medicare Coordinated Care Plans by the Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (See Medicare Managed Care Manual, Chapter 4 Benefits and Beneficiary Protections, section 110.1 Access and Availability Rules for Coordinated Care Plans at
Other commenters suggested that the application acceptance timeframe be changed to a rolling basis, rather than requiring that waiver applications be submitted before, during, or after application deadlines, or that waiver applications be preapproved, with complete documentation submitted only when the grantee invokes the waiver. While HRSA agrees that these methods may be more straightforward, the current process and timelines used to manage and monitor grant applications makes either of these processes not feasible for HRSA.
This Final Notice reaffirms HRSA's position that these revisions to HAB Policy Notice 08–02 are intended to clarify the waiver process and respond to the changing needs of the grantee community, while at the same time ensuring that the waiver process is fair and sufficiently robust so that HRSA is able to undertake appropriate review. The policy will remain in effect, as originally published, and will be identified as HAB Policy Notice 13–07.
POLICY NUMBER 13–07 (Replaces Policy Notice 08–02).
Ryan White Parts A, B, C.
The purpose of this policy is to outline the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) requirements for applying for a waiver of the requirement that 75 percent of Ryan White HIV/AIDS program funds be spent on core medical services.
Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, Part A section 2604(c), Part B section 2612(b), and Part C section 2651(c) requires that grantees expend not less than 75 percent of their grant funds on core medical services. These sections also grant the Secretary authority to waive this requirement if there are no waiting lists for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and core medical services are available to all individuals identified and eligible under Title XXVI in an applicant's service area.
Grantees may submit a waiver request at any time prior to submission of the annual grant application, along with the annual grant application, or up to 4 months after the start of the grant year for which a waiver is being requested. Applications submitted before or after an annual grant application have different requirements than those submitted with an annual grant application. Applicants should choose the method that best meets their needs. The requirements for each process are outlined below.
This section outlines the requirements to submit a waiver application: (1) In advance of a grantee's annual grant application or (2) after the grant application has been submitted up to 4 months into the grant year for which a waiver is being requested. Waiver requests must be submitted through the EHB
1. Letter signed by the Director of the Part B State/Territory Grantee indicating that there is no current or anticipated ADAP services waiting list in the State/Territory.
2. Evidence that all core medical services listed in the statute (Part A
a. HIV/AIDS care and treatment services inventories, including identification of the specific core medical services available, from whom, and through what funding source;
b. HIV/AIDS client/patient service utilization data in addition to what has previously been submitted via the Ryan White Services Report (RSR); and
c. Letters from Medicaid and other State and local HIV/AIDS entitlement and benefits programs, which may include private insurers.
3. Evidence of a public process, which documents that the applicant has sought input from affected communities; including consumers and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded core medical services providers, related to the availability of core medical services and the decision to request a waiver. This public process may be the same one that is utilized for obtaining input on community needs as part of the annual priority setting and resource allocation, comprehensive planning, Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need (SCSN), public planning, and/or needs assessment process. Acceptable evidence must, at a minimum, include:
a. Letters from both the Planning Council Chair in the Metropolitan area (if grantee serves such area) and the State HIV/AIDS Director describing the public process that occurred in each jurisdiction.
4. A narrative of up to, but no more than, 10 pages that explains each item in a. through d. below:
a. Any underlying State or local issues that influenced the grantee's decision to request a waiver.
b. How the documentation submitted under item two supports the assertion that such core services are available and accessible to all individuals with HIV/AIDS, identified and eligible under Title XXVI in the service area.
c. How the approval of a waiver will positively contribute to the grantee's ability to address service needs for HIV/AIDS non-core services. Specifically address the grantee's ability to perform outreach and linkage of HIV-positive individuals not currently in care.
d. How the receipt of the core medical services waiver will allow for implementation consistent with the applicant's proposed percentage allocation of resources, comprehensive plan, and SCSN. Applicants must also document consistency by providing a proposed allocation table.
HRSA/HAB will review the request and notify grantees of waiver approval or denial within eight weeks of receipt of the request. Core medical services waivers will be effective for the grant award period for which it is approved. Subsequent grant periods will require a new waiver request. Grantees that are approved for a core medical services waiver in advance of their annual grant application are not compelled to utilize the waiver should circumstances change.
This section provides guidance for grantees who wish to submit a waiver request with their annual grant application. Waiver requests must be submitted as an attachment to the grantee's annual grant application and should
1. Letter signed by the Director of the Part B State/Territory Grantee indicating that there is no current or anticipated ADAP services waiting list in the State/Territory.
2. Evidence that all core medical services listed in the statute (Part A section 2604(c)(3), Part B section 2612(b)(3), and Part C section 2651(c)(3)), regardless of whether such services are funded by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, are available and accessible within 30 days for all identified and eligible individuals with HIV/AIDS in the service area, without need to expend at least 75 percent of Ryan White funds on these services. Acceptable evidence must include all of the following:
a. HIV/AIDS care and treatment services inventories, including identification of the specific core medical services available, from whom, and through what funding source;
b. HIV/AIDS client/patient service utilization data in addition to what has previously been submitted via the Ryan White Services Report (RSR); and
c. Letters from Medicaid and other State and local HIV/AIDS entitlement and benefits programs, which may include private insurers.
3. Evidence of a public process, which documents that the applicant has sought input from affected communities; including consumers and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program-funded core medical services providers, related to the availability of core medical services and the decision to request a waiver. This public process may be the same one that is utilized for obtaining input on community needs as part of the annual priority setting and resource allocation, comprehensive planning, Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need (SCSN), public planning, and/or needs assessment process. Acceptable evidence must, at a minimum, include:
a. Letters from both the Planning Council Chair in the Metropolitan area (if grantee serves such area) and the State HIV/AIDS Director describing the public process that occurred in each jurisdiction.
4. A narrative of up to, but no more than, 10 pages that explains each item in a. through d. below:
a. Any underlying State or local issues that influenced the grantee's decision to request a waiver.
b. How the documentation submitted under item two supports the assertion that such core services are available and accessible to all individuals with HIV/AIDS, identified and eligible under Title XXVI in the service area.
c. How the approval of a waiver will positively contribute to the grantee's ability to address service needs for HIV/AIDS non-core services. Specifically address the grantee's ability to perform outreach and linkage of HIV-positive individuals not currently in care.
d. How the receipt of the core medical services waiver is consistent with the applicant's grant application, comprehensive plan, and SCSN. Applicants must also document consistency by providing the following:
i. Proposed allocation table, if not included as part of the grant application;
AND
ii. (PART A) “Description of Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes” and “Unmet Need Estimate and Assessment” sections of the current grant application;
iii. (PART B) “Needs Assessment and Unmet Need” section of the current grant application;
iv. (PART C) “Description of the Local HIV Service Delivery System” and “Current and Projected Sources of Funding” sections of the current grant application.
HRSA/HAB will review the request and notify grantees of waiver approval or denial no later than the date of issuance of the Notice of Award (NoA). Core medical services waivers will be effective for the grant award period for which it is approved. Subsequent grant periods will require a new waiver request. Grantees that are approved for a core medical services waiver in their annual grant application are not compelled to utilize the waiver should circumstances change.
This activity has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Control number 0915–0307).
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is updating income levels used to identify a “low-income family” for the purpose of determining eligibility for programs that provide health professions and nursing training for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. These various programs are included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act.
The Department periodically publishes in the
The various health professions and nursing grant and cooperative agreement programs that use the low-income levels to determine whether an individual is from an economically disadvantaged background in making eligibility and funding determinations generally make awards to: Accredited schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, public health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, pharmacy, allied health, podiatric medicine, nursing, chiropractic, public or private nonprofit schools which offer graduate programs in behavioral health and mental health practice, and other public or private nonprofit health or education entities to assist the disadvantaged to enter and graduate from health professions and nursing schools. Some programs provide for the repayment of health professions or nursing education loans for disadvantaged students.
The Secretary defines a “low-income family/household” for programs included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act as having an annual income that does not exceed 200 percent of the Department's poverty guidelines. A family is a group of two or more individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption who live together. On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex spouses and same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional. In light of this decision, please note that same-sex marriages and same-sex spouses will be recognized on equal terms with opposite-sex spouses and opposite-sex marriages, regardless of where the couple resides. A “household” may be only one person. Most HRSA programs use the income of the student's parents to compute low-income status. Other programs, depending upon the legislative intent of the program, the programmatic purpose related to income level, as well as the age and circumstances of the participant, will apply these low income standards to the individual student to determine eligibility, as long as he or she is not listed as a dependent on his or her parents' tax form. Each program will announce the rationale and choice of methodology for determining low-income levels in their program guidance. The Department's poverty guidelines are based on poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index.
The Secretary annually adjusts the low-income levels based on the Department's poverty guidelines and makes them available to persons responsible for administering the applicable programs. The income figures below have been updated to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index through December 31, 2012.
Separate poverty guidelines figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966–1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds—the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes—have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii). The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions shall use income guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, October 18, 2013, 2:00 p.m. to October 18, 2013, 3:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on October 23, 2013. The location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, October 01, 2013, 02:00 p.m. to October 01, 2013, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
This meeting will be held on October 31, 2013. The location and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the International and Cooperative Projects—1 Study Section, October 01, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to October 01, 2013, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 5, 2013 at 08:00 a.m. and end November 8, 2013 at 06:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to the Government shutdown of October 2013.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to the Government shutdown of October 2013.
The Urology Subcommittee of the Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases Interagency Coordinating Committee (KUHICC) will hold a 1-day workshop on November 4, 2013. The workshop will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available.
The workshop will be held on November 4, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Requests for registration must occur 7 days prior to the workshop.
The workshop will be at the National Institutes of Health, Office of Research on Women's Health, Room 401, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20817.
For further information concerning this workshop, contact Dr. Tamara Bavendam, Co-Chair, Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases Interagency Coordinating Committee—Urology Subcommittee, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, Room 615, MSC 5458, Bethesda, MD 20892–5458, telephone: 301–594–4733; email:
The KUHICC facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on kidney, urologic, and hematologic diseases among government entities. The November 4, 2013, workshop held by the KUHICC Urology Subcommittee, also called the “Urology Interagency Coordinating Committee (UICC), will discuss research needs and new directions in women's urologic health that can assist the NIDDK in development of a new Women's Urologic Health Research Program. An agenda for this workshop is available by contacting Dr. Tamara Bavendam, email:
Any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their 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. Because of time constraints for the workshop, there will not be time on the agenda for oral comments from members of the public.
Please note that seating is limited and attendance will be first-come, first-served. Non-federal individuals planning to attend the workshop should register by email to Dr. Tamara Bavendam, email:
Please put “Registration UICC Nov 4 Meeting” in the subject line. Request for registration should occur at least 7 days prior to the workshop. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below at least 10 days in advance of the workshop.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to the Government shutdown of October 2013.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research 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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are sponsoring a one-day symposium on November 14, 2013, to present information about the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) to those with an interest in the effort to standardize vitamin D measurement. These groups include commercial assay manufacturers; commercial, clinical, and research laboratory personnel; vitamin D researchers; and members of professional societies with clinical and public health interest in vitamin D.
November 14, 2013, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).
NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Green Auditorium, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1070. The NIST campus is a highly secured area. Because of this, you are required to register in advance and must present a current government-issued identification card with photo when entering the facility. The Web address for registration is
Ms. Cindy Rooney, ODS, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 3B01, Bethesda, MD 20892–7523; email:
The ODS established the VDSP in November 2010 in an effort to standardize the laboratory measurement of vitamin D status worldwide. Standardization is essential to improve the detection, evaluation, and treatment of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency by making measurements of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] accurate and comparable over time, location, and laboratory procedure.
The symposium on November 14 will (1) Describe the VDSP; (2) present data from the VDSP inter-laboratory comparison and commutability studies demonstrating its effectiveness; (3) demonstrate how tools developed through the VDSP can be used to improve the standardization of vitamin D measurement in the United States and around the world; and (4) solicit feedback from symposium participants on how the VDSP can be improved to meet the needs of participants. All participants must register at
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 202–402–5564 (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.
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
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 Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and final decision.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make available the final Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the final amendment to the Barton Springs Pool Habitat Conservation Plan (BSP HCP) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The City of Austin (applicant) applied for a renewal of their existing Endangered Species Act incidental take permit, with a major amendment to add the Austin blind salamander as an additional covered species; to increase the amount of take for Barton Springs salamander; and to extend the permit term for an additional 20 years.
We are issuing the Finding of No Significant Impact with this notice.
You may obtain copies of the FONSI, final EA, and final BSP HCP at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (search for Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0061), as well as on the Service's Web site at
Alternatively, you may obtain a CD–ROM with electronic copies of the FONSI, final EA, and final BSP HCP by writing to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; calling 512–490–0057; or faxing 512–490–0974. A limited number of printed copies of the final documents are also available, by request, from Mr. Zerrenner. Copies of the FONSI, final EA, and final BSP HCP are also available for public inspection and review at the following locations, by appointment and written request only, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.:
• Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C. St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758–4460; or by telephone at 512–490–0057.
In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we advise the public that:
1. We gathered the information necessary to determine impacts and formulate alternatives for the EA related to potential issuance of a renewed incidental take permit (ITP) with a major amendment to the applicant;
2. The applicant developed an amended habitat conservation plan (BSP HCP) as part of the application for an ITP, which describes the measures the applicant has agreed to take to minimize and mitigate the effects of incidental take of covered species to the maximum extent practicable pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and,
3. We have a finding of no significant impact; therefore,
4. We issued the ITP to the applicant on September 12, 2013.
The applicant applied for a renewed ITP (TE–839031), with a major amendment that will be in effect for an additional 20 years, and authorizes incidental take of two animal species (covered species), the endangered Barton Springs salamander (
The applicant originally held an ITP (TE–839031) for the Barton Springs salamander that would have expired on October 2, 2013. Opportunity for public review of the original permit application, the environmental assessment, and the habitat conservation plan was provided in the
The application for amendment to the ITP included adding Austin Blind salamander as a covered species, increasing the amount of take authorized for Barton Springs salamander, and an extension of the permit term for an additional 20 years to 2033.
We considered one alternative to the proposed action.
1. No Action—No renewal of the ITP with a major amendment would be issued. Under this alternative, maintenance of the Barton Springs Pool would continue only until the current permit expires. When the current permit expires, the applicant would halt all maintenance activities that may cause take of listed species. As routine and post-flood cleaning is critical to maintaining Barton Springs Pool for recreational activities, use of the Pool would likely be restricted until a new incidental take permit could be issued. The applicant would continue to be subject to the take prohibitions of the Act. Where potential impacts could not be avoided, and where a Federal nexus exists, measures designed to minimize and mitigate for the impacts would be addressed through individual formal or informal consultation with the Service.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
We issued an ITP to the City of Austin for implementation of the preferred alternative as it is described in the BSP HCP. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of this decision entails issuance of the ITP by the Service and full implementation of the BSP HCP by the City of Austin, including minimization and mitigation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and complying with all terms and conditions in the ITP.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we are issuing a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (revised DEIS) for the South Farallon Islands Invasive House Mouse Eradication Project on the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge, CA. If you have previously submitted comments, please do not resubmit them, because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final EIS.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments on or before December 9, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
•
•
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarters, 1 Marshlands Road, Fremont, CA 94555.
San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
•
•
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all information received on
Gerry McChesney, Refuge Manager, 510–792–0222, ext. 222 (phone).
On August 16, 2013, we published a
For more information on the proposed eradication of invasive house mice from the South Farallon Islands, see our August 16, 2013, notice (78 FR 50082).
We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described in
We provide this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4371
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to The Kuskokwim Corporation. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Containing 1,280 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until November 25, 2013 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by email at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Owyhee Field Office Jump Creek, Succor Creek and Cow Creek Watersheds grazing permit renewal, and by this notice is announcing its availability.
The BLM will not issue a final decision on the proposal for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this notice in the
Copies of the Jump Creek, Succor Creek and Cow Creek Watersheds Grazing Permit Renewal Final EIS are available for public inspection at Owyhee Field Office, 20 First Avenue West, Marsing, ID 83639; the BLM Boise District Office, 3948 Development Ave., Boise ID 83705; the BLM Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise ID 83709. Interested persons may also review the Final EIS online at
Jake Vialpando, Project Manager; telephone 208–373–3814; address 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise ID 83709; email
The area covered by the permit renewal requests is located in Owyhee County, Idaho, and encompasses approximately 120,000 acres of public land. In addition to livestock grazing, a variety of other multiple uses exist within this area, including year-long recreation activities, particularly hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, and off-road vehicle use; wild horse management; potential wind energy development and electrical transmission line development. The Owyhee Field Office will continue to consult with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and other parties, as applicable, on this action during regular consultation proceedings and briefings. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders who may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project were invited to comment as well.
The purpose of the action in the Final EIS is to provide for livestock grazing opportunities on public lands using existing infrastructure where such grazing is consistent with meeting management objectives, including the 1997 Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Idaho S&Gs).
The need is established by the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), FLPMA, and the 1999 Owyhee Resource Management Plan (ORMP), which require the BLM to respond to new applications or renewals for permits to graze livestock on public land. A detailed analysis of actions and alternative actions identified in the applications for grazing permit renewals is needed because:
• The BLM-Idaho adopted the Idaho S&Gs in 1997. Rangelands should be meeting or making significant progress toward meeting the standards and must provide for proper nutrient cycling, hydrologic cycling, and energy flow. Guidelines direct the selection of grazing management practices and, where appropriate, livestock facilities to promote significant progress toward, or the attainment and maintenance of, the standards.
• The ORMP identifies resource management objectives and management actions that guide the management of a broad spectrum of land uses and allocations for public lands in the Owyhee Field Office. The ORMP allocated public lands within the 25 allotments available for domestic livestock grazing. Where consistent with the goals and objectives of the ORMP and Idaho S&Gs, allocation of forage for livestock use and the issuance of grazing permits to qualified applicants are provided for by the TGA and FLPMA.
Issues were identified by BLM personnel, Federal, State, and local agencies, and other stakeholders during scoping. Some of these key issues include the effects of livestock grazing on rangelands, wild horse herd management areas, wildlife habitats (including Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitats), as well as the potential for disease transmission between domestic and bighorn sheep. Livestock management modifications are required where current livestock grazing management is determined by the authorized officer to be a significant causal factor for not meeting or not making significant progress toward meeting the Idaho Standards for Rangeland Health, and not achieving ORMP objectives. Evidence suggests that contact between bighorn sheep and
Other key issues identified and analyzed in the Final EIS involve the impact of livestock grazing on riparian area conditions and aquatic habitat causing the alteration of the health and composition of riparian vegetation communities, especially fish and amphibian habitat conditions; GRSG habitat conditions and the maintenance and enhancement of GRSG populations in accordance with BLM policy. Additionally, livestock grazing that may result in the reduction or removal of native vegetation communities that protect watershed soil and hydrologic function are analyzed in the Final EIS. Also included is an analysis of the potential effects of livestock grazing and trailing on special status plant species and their sustainability, as well as on the spread of noxious and invasive weeds. The BLM analyzed the potential effects of six alternative grazing systems. Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, which analyzes the consequences of allowing current grazing management actions to continue. Alternative 2 reflects the applications proposed by the permittees currently authorized to graze in these allotments. This alternative is described as the Proposed Action and is, in this case, one that was developed by non-BLM parties. Alternative 3 analyzes the incorporation of a deferred grazing schedule where postponement or delay of grazing is used to achieve management objectives. Alternative 4 incorporates a grazing schedule that prescribes seasons-of-use changes including rest and deferment to protect and enhance high-value resources during certain times of the year. Both alternatives 3 and 4 may include animal unit month (AUM) reductions at varying levels. Alternative 5 addresses the effects specific to a change in livestock classification from sheep to cattle on a single allotment. Alternative 6 analyzes the effects of authorizing no grazing in the allotments for a period of 10 years. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs the BLM to “identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference (40 CFR 1502.14 (e)).” The BLM did not identify a preferred alternative during the Draft EIS public comment period but has identified a preferred alternative in the Final EIS, as required in the CEQ regulations and in BLM policy. The preferred alternative is an allotment-specific composite of the different action alternatives, the effects of which are analyzed in the Final EIS. The preferred alternative includes a reconfiguration of two allotments into one, as requested by the permittees. Alternative 2 is identified for 6 of the allotments, Alternative 4 for 7 allotments, and Alternative 3 for the remaining 11 allotments in the group, including for the newly combined Wild Rat allotment.
Comments on the Draft EIS received from the public and internal BLM review were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the Final EIS. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text but did not significantly change proposed decisions.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correction.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a notice in the September 5, 2013,
Kyle Voyles, National Conservation Area (NCA) Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, St. George Field Office, 345 E. Riverside Drive, St. George, Utah 84790; email
This action corrects the first column, second paragraph on page 54676 to read, “Pursuant to 43 CFR Part 2930, standard amenity fees will be collected through the issuance of a BLM Recreation Use Permit for the day-use of the White Reef Park amenities. Fees will be collected through a self-service pay station located at White Reef Park. Holders of the America the Beautiful—the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass do not have to pay the standard amenity fee.”
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Pecos District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting is on November 19, 2013, from 9 a.m.–4 p.m.
The meeting will be at the Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Field Office, 620 East Greene Street, Carlsbad, NM, on November 19. The public may send written comments to the RAC, 2909 W. 2nd Street, Roswell, NM 88201.
Howard Parman, Pecos District, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 W. 2nd Street, Roswell, NM 88201, 575–627–0212. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229 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.
The 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of
All RAC meetings are open to the public. There will be a public comment period at 3:00 p.m. for any interested members of the public who wish to address the Council on BLM programs and business. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. You may also submit written comments during the meeting for the RAC's consideration.
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, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Farmington District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will meet on November 13 and 14, 2013, at the Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87401, from 9 a.m.–4 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87401.
Christine Horton, BLM Farmington District Office, 6251 College Blvd., Suite A, Farmington, NM 87401, 505–564–7633. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229 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.
The 10-member Farmington District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM's Farmington District. Planned agenda items include: Opening remarks from the BLM Farmington District Manager; updates on ongoing planning efforts; Chaco Canyon leasing; the Mancos/Gallup Shale Resource Management Plan Amendment; the Visual Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Glade Run Recreation Area; wild horse gathers for the Farmington District; the Tri-State Transmission Valley Corridor Proposal; the Cebolla Oil and Gas Lease Environmental Assessment; and Taos Field Office planning updates (including Río Grande del Norte National Monument, the El Palacio/Sombrillo Travel Management Plan, and the Sabinoso Wilderness).
On Thursday, November 14, 2013, at 3 p.m., members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the RAC, during a half-hour public comment period. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 2 p.m. on November 14, 2013, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of commenters, the length of comments may be limited; this time may vary. The BLM appreciates any and all comments.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Carson City District, Nevada, has examined and found suitable for classification for conveyance approximately 12.38 acres of public land in Storey County, Nevada, under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended (NVN 082004). Storey County proposes to use the land for a sewage treatment facility to serve Virginia City, Nevada. This notice terminates the previous classification of a portion of land for conveyance under NVN 046965.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification or conveyance on or before December 9, 2013.
Send written comments to Leon Thomas, Field Manager, BLM Sierra Front Field Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Rd., Carson City, NV 89701.
Erik Pignata, Realty Specialist, at the address in the
Storey County filed an R&PP application to use public land to authorize and expand an existing sewage treatment facility in order to facilitate increased growth in the area and allow proposed system upgrades. The parcel of land is legally described as:
The area described contains 12.38 acres more or less in Storey County.
A portion of the land was previously classified under NVN 046965 on behalf of an R&PP application submitted by the Storey County School District for authorization of the Virginia City High School. This notice terminates that classification NVN 046965 so far as it affects lands identified as Section 28, T. 17 N., R. 21 E., and classifies all the lands described above as suitable for the proposed use and conveyance for a sewage treatment facility.
The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The proposed conveyance is consistent with the BLM Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan dated May 2001, and would be in the public interest.
The conveyance, if issued, would be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, including, but not limited to, 43 CFR Part 2743, and would be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe;
3. A right-of-way for a power line granted to Sierra Pacific Power Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way NVN 077704 pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (31 Stat. 0790, 43 U.S.C. 959); and
4. Valid existing rights.
An indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the land has been executed by Storey County and will be included in the patent when issued.
A limited reversionary provision states that the title shall revert to the United States upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the patentee has not substantially developed the land in accordance with the approved plan of development 5 years after the date of conveyance. No portion of the land shall under any circumstances revert to the United States if any such portion has been used for waste disposal or for any other purpose which may result in the disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substance.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Interested persons may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for development for a sewage treatment facility. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or whether the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Interested persons may submit comments, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the parcel, regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed appropriate administrative procedures in reaching a decision to convey under the R&PP Act, or any other factors not directly related to the suitability of the land for sewage treatment facility purposes.
Documents related to this action are on file at the BLM Sierra Front Field Office at the address in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail to the Field Manager, BLM Sierra Front Field Office, will be considered properly filed.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become effective December 24, 2013. The land would not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
43 CFR 2741.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington (Burke Museum), has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Burke Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum at the address in this notice by November 25, 2013.
Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685–3849, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Burke Museum. The human remains were removed from Island County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington; Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington); Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington; Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington); and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (all of the
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Useless Bay in Island County, WA. The remains were removed by Bob Atwell and Emil Gabeline and subsequently donated to the Burke Museum (Burke Accn. #1963–50). During initial consultations, the remains were believed to have been removed from Careless Bay in Island County, WA. The remains were included in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Native American speakers of the Northern dialect of the Lushootseed language claim cultural heritage to southern Whidbey Island. Historical and anthropological sources (Mooney 1896, Ruby and Brown 1986, Spier 1936, and Swanton 1952) indicate that the Snohomish occupied southern Whidbey Island. The Sdugwadskabsh band of Snohomish people lived at Newell at Useless Bay (Swanton 1952). The Indian Claims Commission determined that Useless Bay was within the aboriginal territory of the Snohomish people. Holmes Harbor was one of the areas the Stillaguamish and other tribes were told to move to after being forced to leave their villages on the mainland (Deur 2009, Grady 2012). Holmes Harbor is in close proximity to Useless Bay. Today, descendants of Snohomish are represented by the Tulalip Tribes of Washington.
Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:
• Based on archaeological evidence, the human remains have been determined to be Native American.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington) and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685–3849, email
The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Anne Amati, University of Denver Museum of Anthropology, 2000 E Asbury Avenue, Denver, CO 80210, telephone (303) 871–2687, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the University of Denver Museum of Anthropology.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the control of the human remains and associated funerary objects from site 5CN26, Conejos County, CO, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
This notice corrects a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
In the
The museum has also determined that control of the human remains and associated funerary objects in paragraphs 7–8 is misattributed for DU CO X:16:12 per 43 CFR 10.2(a)(3)(ii). A separate notice will be published by the Bureau of Land Management with that determination. Based on this information, paragraphs 7–8 and 11–12 are deleted from the original notice (66 FR 51472–51474, October 9, 2001).
In the
In the
Museum officials have determined that the human remains in paragraphs 9–10 (DU CO V:9:GEA) have a cultural affiliation that can be narrowed to the present-day Pueblo tribes. The original notice 66 FR 51472–51474, October 9, 2001) is corrected by replacing paragraphs 9–10 with the following:
In the
In the
In the
Officials of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9–10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of a minimum of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C.3001(3)(A), the 50 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near the individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
The University of Denver Museum of Anthropology is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (formerly Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before September 21, 2013. 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 November 12, 2013. 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Nathanael Comly (202–205–3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On April 16, 2013, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject five year reviews (78 FR 24435, April 25, 2013). Subsequently, due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission postponed the hearing in this matter. The Commission, therefore, is revising the remainder of its schedule to conform to the revised hearing date.
The Commission's new schedule for these reviews is as follows: The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 31, 2013; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is November 8, 2013; the Commission will make its final release of information on December 10, 2013; and final party comments are due on December 12, 2013.
For further information concerning these reviews see the Commission's notice cited above and the
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 28, 2012, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Coalition of Gulf Shrimp Industries, Biloxi, MS. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from countries under investigation were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)).
The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on October 21, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 3, 2013, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Optical Devices, LLC of Peterborough, New Hampshire. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on September 20, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,007 (“the `007 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,196,979 (“the `979 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,416,651 (“the `651 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE40,927 (“the `927 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE42,913 (“the `913 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. RE43,681 (“the `681 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists 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, 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 no. (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 the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–1802.
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 (2013).
(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 optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 9–11, 13, 15, and 16 of the `007 patent; claims 13 and 14 of the `979 patent; claims 1–4, 9–12, 17, 21, 25, 29–31, 35, and 36 of the `651 patent; claims 37–39 of the `927 patent; claims 51–53 of the `913 patent; and claims 54–59 and 65–69 of the `681 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists 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: Optical Devices, LLC, 20 Depot Street, Suite 2A, Peterborough, NH 03458.
(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:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint 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 and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint 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 and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint 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 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Trico Products Corporation on October 21, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain windshield wipers and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Federal-Mogul Corporation of Southfield, MI and Federal Mogul S.A. of Belgium. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2987”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Catherine DeFilippo (202–205–3160), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On September 30, 2013, the Commission posted a notification on its Web site, that if the Commission did not receive funding by 8:45 a.m. on October 1, 2013, the agency would shut down its investigative activities for the duration of the absence of an appropriation. The notice stated that if a shutdown occurred, the schedules and deadlines for all investigative and pre-institution activities would be tolled by the number of days for which the government was shut down. The notice further indicated that the Commission would reconsider schedules after resuming operations.
The Commission was unable to operate from October 1, 2013 to October 16, 2013 because of an absence of appropriations. Accordingly, all statutory deadlines pertaining to activities conducted under the authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (including antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and reviews) will be tolled 16 calendar days. Additionally, the Commission is revising its schedules for individual proceedings to reflect the tolling of deadlines, which, unless otherwise indicated, have been extended 16 calendar days. Individual case schedules will be revised and posted on the Commission's Web site (www.usitc.gov) and separate
The Commission's new scheduled dates for conferences in preliminary phase investigations and submission of postconference briefs are as follows:
The activities referenced in this notice are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notice of Public Hearing and Open Meeting.
On November 7, 2013, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a one-day public hearing on the proposed amendments to Civil Rules 1, 4, 6, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 55, 84, and Appendix of Forms.
On November 8, 2013, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a one-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
November 7 and 8, 2013.
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Jonathan C. Rose, Secretary and Chief Rules Officer, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
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. 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 December 24, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
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 Andrea Burch, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 202–307–1138).
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., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 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. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment until November 25, 2013 This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to email them to
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)
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 24, 2013, Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616–3466, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for internal use, and to manufacture bulk intermediates for sale to its customers.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007).
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than November 25, 2013.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 23, 2013, Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1230 Wash Street, Suite D, Windsor, Colorado 80550, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for sale to its customers.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)] may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
This is notice that on February 28, 2013, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to its customers.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007).
As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34 (a), this is notice that on July 31, 2013, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland 20852, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import reference standards for sale to researchers and analytical labs.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II, which fall
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than November 25, 2013.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 5, 2013, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801–4417, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import Opium, raw (9600) and Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) to manufacture other controlled substances. The company plans to import Tapentadol (9780) in intermediate form for the bulk manufacture of Tapentadol (9780) for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import Phenylacetone (8501) in bulk for the manufacture of a controlled substance.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417(2007).
In regard to the non-narcotic raw material, any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I or II, which fall under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated March 19, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to manufacture bulk controlled substance for distribution to its customer.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417(2007).
DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Stepan Company to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Stepan Company to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest.
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated August 2, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to bulk manufacture APIs for distribution to its customer.
Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007).
DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Siegfried USA, LLC., to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Siegfried USA, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated June 18, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to bulk manufacture amphetamine.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest.
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated June 18, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import Remifentanil in bulk for use in dosage form manufacturing.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Akorn, Inc., consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Akorn, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest.
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated May 24, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical testing and clinical trials.
The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances will be granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Watson Pharma, Inc., to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 8, 2013, Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Regarding the drug code (8333), the company plans manufacture this controlled substance for commercial sale.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control,
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 25, 2013, Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers, for dosage form development, for clinical trials, and for use in stability qualification studies.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 16, 2013, PharmaCore, Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, NC 27265, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance as active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) for clinical trials.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 12, 2013, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004–1412, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture a radioactive product to diagnose Parkinson's disease for distribution to its customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on February 7, 2013, Stepan Company, Natural Products Dept., 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to their customers.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on July 25, 2013, Research Triangle Institute, Hermann Building East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
The company plans to provide small quantities to commercial customers for use in preparing test kits, reagents, and reference standards.
The company plans to bulk manufacture a synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on August 16, 2013, Nektar Therapeutics, 1112 Church Street, Huntsville, Alabama 35801, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Fentanyl (9801), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in support of product development.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 24, 2013.
By Notice dated June 18, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers and formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. In reference to Methadone Intermediate (9254) the company plans to produce Methadone HCL active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for sale to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems; verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws; and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated May 14, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to bulk manufacture a synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinol. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
On August 9, 2013, Austin Pharma, LLC., withdrew their request for the addition of marihuana (7360) to their registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Austin Pharma, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Austin Pharma, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated May 24, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Agilent Technologies to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Agilent Technologies to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated May 24, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance, as bulk intermediates for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The
By Notice dated May 22, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and determined that the registration of Siegfried USA, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried USA, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems; verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws; and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated May 24, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture reference standards.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and determined that the registration of Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Sigma Aldrich Research Biochemicals, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems; verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws; and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
The Notice dated July 23, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and determined that the registration of Siegfried USA, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried USA, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems; verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws; and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated June 18, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers for use as reference standards.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Chemtos, LLC., to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Chemtos, LLC., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated June 7, 2013, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc., to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time.
DEA has investigated Noramco, Inc., to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Survivor's Form for Benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Submit comments on or before November 25, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
A survivor of a deceased miner files the “Survivor's Form for Benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act,” Form CM–912, to apply for benefits under the Black Lung
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. It should also be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Submit comments on or before November 25, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702 prohibits a person from smoking or carrying smoking materials underground or in places where there is a fire or explosion hazard. Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702–1 requires a mine operator to submit a smoking prevention plan to the MSHA for approval.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. It should also be noted that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Users Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, November 19, 2013. The meeting will be held in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC.
The Committee provides advice to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the points of view of data users from various sectors of the U.S. economy, including the labor, business, research, academic, and government communities, on technical matters related to the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use of the Bureau's statistics, on its published reports, and on the broader aspects of its overall mission and function.
The meeting will be held in Meeting Rooms 1, 2, and 3 of the Postal Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Kathy Mele, Data Users Advisory Committee, on 202.691.6102. Individuals who require special accommodations should contact Ms. Mele at least two days prior to the meeting date.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice soliciting comments on motion for partial distribution.
The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) are soliciting comments on a motion for partial distribution in connection with 2009, 2010, and 2011 DART Musical Works Fund royalties.
Comments are due on or before November 25, 2013.
Interested parties may comment electronically by email to
Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email at
On September 9, 2013, Broadcast Music, Inc., the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, SESAC, Inc., and The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (hereinafter “Settling Claimants”) filed with the Judges a Motion for Partial Distribution of the [Digital Audio Recording Technology (DART)] Musical Works Fund to Broadcast Music, Inc., American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, SESAC, Inc., and the Harry Fox Agency, Inc., as Settling Claimants (Motion). In the Motion, the Settling Claimants state that they have reached confidential settlements among themselves concerning their respective distribution shares for the years 2009 through 2011,
Section 801(b)(3)(C) requires publication in the
The Judges do not find, based on the historical record, that no controversy exists with regard to the 2009, 2010, or 2011 Musical Works funds; rather the Judges publish the Settling Parties' request for comment in the
The Judges, therefore, seek comments from any claimant entitled to receive royalties from the 2009–2011 DART Musical Works Funds stating whether there are any reasonable objections to a partial distribution of 95% of the 2009–2011 Musical Works Funds to the Settling Claimants
The Settling Claimants' motion for partial distribution is posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held via Teleconference and Webex for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013, 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
This meeting will take place telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 800–857–7040, pass code PSS, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–0750, fax (202) 358–3092, or
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
In accordance with Section 102–3.150(b) of the GSA Federal Advisory Committee Management; Final Rule (41 CFR parts 101–6 and 102–3), this meeting is being announced with less than 15 day notification due to the recent Federal Government shutdown which forced NASA to cancel a previously scheduled meeting of the Planetary Science Subcommittee where a time-critical, mandatory review and scoring of agency annual performance goals, required by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, was to take place. Due to the length of the shutdown a teleconference will be used to complete this action prior to the Office of Management and Budget imminent deadline. Because a quorum of the Planetary Science Subcommittee is required for this action, November 5, 2013, is the only available date for this telecon.
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR part 101–6, announcement is made for the following committee meeting to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.
The meeting will be held on November 14, 2013 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.
This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, November 8, 2013. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.
David O. Best, Senior Program Analyst, ISOO, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 357–5123, or at
October 21, 2013 (78 FR 62364).
10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 24, 2013.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.
Open.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on October 21, 2013 (78 FR 62364) of the regular meeting of the NCUA Board scheduled for October 24, 2013. Prior to the meeting, on October 22, 2013, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required the addition of the first item on the agenda with less than seven days' notice to the public, and that no earlier notice of the deletion was possible.
1. Board Briefing, Proposed Interagency Policy Statement, Joint Diversity Standards for Regulated Entities.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submissions of responses.
For a copy of the documents contact: Deanne W. Swan, Senior Statistician, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street NW., 9th Floor, Washington DC 20036. Dr. Swan can be reached by Telephone: 202–653–4769, Fax: 202–653–4601, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is an independent Federal grant-making agency and is the primary source of Federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. IMLS provides a variety of grant programs to assist the Nation's museums and libraries in improving their operations and enhancing their services to the public. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for and trends in museum, library, and information services; measuring and reporting on the impact and effectiveness of museum, library and information services throughout the United States, including programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS; identifying, and disseminating information on, the best practices of such programs; and developing plans to improve museum, library and information services of the United States and strengthen national, State, local, regional, and international communications and cooperative networks (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108).
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of Meeting
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), as amended, notice is hereby given that thirteen meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, and Thursday, November 7, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will convene an investigative hearing to gather additional factual information for the ongoing investigation into two Metro-North Railroad accidents that occurred in May 2013. The NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman will preside over the Investigative Hearing.
On Friday, May 17, 2013, at 6:01 p.m. eastern daylight time, eastbound Metro-North Railroad passenger train 1548, (departing Grand Central Station, NY toward New Haven, CT) derailed near milepost 53.3 on track number 4 and was struck by westbound Metro-North Railroad passenger train 1581 (departing New Haven toward Grand Central Station). As a result of the collision, 73 passengers, two engineers, and a conductor were transported to local hospitals with injuries. Metro-North estimated there were about 250 passengers on each train at the time of the accident. Metro-North estimated damage at $18.5 million.
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 11:57 a.m. eastern daylight time, Metro-North Railroad passenger train 1559, traveling westbound at 70 mph, struck and killed a track foreman working on the Metro-North New Haven Line, Subdivision 7, in West Haven, CT. The accident occurred at milepost 69.58 on main track 1. The track foreman's planned work for the day consisted of relocating rail segments from main track 1 to industrial track 5 between control points 266 and 271 near the West Haven Station using a locomotive crane. There were two rail traffic controllers (RTCs) assigned to Division G, the Division where the track foreman was working: (1) A qualified RTC and (2) a student RTC, who was training under the mentorship of the qualified RTC. The student RTC was receiving on-the-job training and was the RTC who applied the blocking devices for this work crew and issued the working authority, thus taking the track out-of-service.
As a result of the West Haven accident, on June 17, 2013, the Board released an urgent recommendation to Metro-North to require redundant protection, such as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work crews who depend on the train dispatcher to control access to occupied sections of track. A shunt is a device that crews can attach to the rails in a work zone to alert
The investigative hearing will discuss the following issue areas:
• Adequacy of existing Federal track inspection standards, and the adequacy of Metro-North's track maintenance and inspection program;
• Adequacy of existing Federal passenger car safety standards emphasizing `forward end' car requirements, and the crashworthiness of Metro-North's M8 railcars emphasizing the rear (B) end corner post and truck attachment;
• Metro-North's operational protection of track work areas; and
• Metro-North's organizational safety culture.
Parties to the hearing include the Federal Railroad Administration, State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, Metro-North Railroad, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department, Association of Commuter Railroad Employees, Kawasaki Rail Car, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Sheet Metal and Rail Transportation Employees, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
At the start of the hearing, the public docket will be opened. Included in the docket are photographs, interview transcripts, and numerous other documents.
The hearing docket is DCA13MR003.
The Investigative Hearing will be held in the NTSB Board Room and Conference Center, located at 429 L'Enfant Plaza E. SW., Washington, DC, Wednesday, November 6, and Thursday, November 7, 2013, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The public can view the hearing in person or by live webcast at
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Ms. Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory Guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision to regulatory guide (RG), 1.79, “Preoperational Testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized-Water Reactors.” This RG is being revised to incorporate guidance for preoperational testing of new pressurized water reactor (PWR) designs.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2011–0129 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Frank Talbot, telephone: 301–415–3145, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
This revision of RG 1.79 describes the general scope and depth the NRC staff considers acceptable for demonstrating compliance with the NRC regulations relating to preoperational testing of features in the emergency core cooling systems (ECCSs) of pressurized water reactors (PWRs). This RG also describes methods the NRC staff finds acceptable for preoperational testing of ECCS structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Appendix A of RG 1.79 contains a discussion of the ECCS for the current fleet of PWRs as well as diagrams and descriptions of the ECCS for advanced PWR designs including the U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor, U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor, and AP1000.
This RG describes preoperational testing methods acceptable to the NRC staff specifically for ECCSs in PWRs. This RG is applicable to all PWRs
Nuclear power plant SSCs must be tested to quality standards commensurate with their importance to safety. Criterion XI, “Test Control,” of Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR part 50 requires licensees to establish a testing program to identify and perform all tests needed to demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service. This testing program is to be conducted in accordance with written test procedures that incorporate the requirements and acceptance criteria in applicable design documents. The ECCS functions to be tested are those necessary to ensure that specified design functions of the ECCS are met during any condition of normal operation, including abnormal operating occurrences, or because of postulated accident conditions.
Revision 2 of RG 1.79 was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) 1253, “Preoperational Testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized-Water Reactors.” Draft Regulatory Guide 1253, was published in the
This regulatory guide is a rule as designated in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not found it to be a major rule as designated in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this final regulatory guide does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this regulatory guide, the NRC has no current intention to impose this regulatory guide on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
This regulatory guide may be applied to applications for operating licenses and combined licenses docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications for operating licenses and combined licenses submitted after the issuance of the regulatory guide. Such action does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or is otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1 of regulatory guide (RG) 1.184 “Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors.” This guide describes a method NRC considers acceptable for use in decommissioning power reactors.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–0035 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
James C. Shepherd, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, telephone: 301–415–6712, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC issued Revision 1 of RG 1.184 with a temporary identification as
Revision 1 of RG 1.184 describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in complying with the NRC's regulations relating to the decommissioning process for nuclear power reactors. The revision takes advantage of the 13 years of decommissioning experience since the first issuance of RG 1.184 in July 2000, and decommissioning guidance documents released since then have been incorporated into the guide.
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Issuance of this final regulatory guide does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this regulatory guide, the NRC has no current intention to impose this regulatory guide on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.110, “Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,” in which the NRC made editorial corrections and formatting changes with no substantive changes in the staff regulatory positions. This guide describes methods and procedures that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for performing a cost-benefit analysis for liquid and gaseous radwaste system components for light water nuclear power reactors.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0237 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Stephen C. Burton, Region III, telephone: 301–415–7000; email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. Regulatory guides were developed to describe and make available to the public information and methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The NRC typically seeks public comment on a draft version of a regulatory guide by announcing its availability for comment in the
The NRC is issuing Revision 1 of RG 1.110 directly as a final regulatory guide because the changes between Revision 0 and Revision 1 are non-substantive. Regulatory Guide 1.110 was revised to incorporate editorial changes and the NRC's current format for regulatory guides. These changes were intended to improve clarity and did not alter the staff regulatory guidance.
In the course of a periodic review of the guide, the NRC staff identified several technical issues (ADAMS Accession No. ML13238A095). Nonetheless, the current version is successfully being used by the NRC staff in their safety reviews and by applicants in preparing license applications under parts 50 and 52 of Title 10 of the
The NRC staff currently is considering revising RG 1.110 as part of rulemaking efforts being planned in response to the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY–12–0064, “Recommendation for Policy and Technical Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12306A119). The rulemaking effort for 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion `As Low as is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,” will include the development of a technical basis, public meetings and industry workshops, and revision of NRC guidance documents and computer codes. This effort should also incorporate the update of the cost-benefit ratio for person-rem, which would be a significant update.
Issuance of this final regulatory guide does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10
This regulatory guide is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 801–808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Revision 1 of RG 1.110 is being issued without public comment. However, you may at any time submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing regulatory guides or for the development of new regulatory guides to address new issues. Suggestions can be submitted by the form available online at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG–8031, “Monitoring Criteria and Methods to Calculate Occupational Radiation Doses.” This guide describes methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable for licensees to use to determine monitoring criteria and calculate occupational radiation doses.
Submit comments by December 24, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comment by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Harriet Karagiannis, telephone: 301–251–7477, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0234 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–0234 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in
This draft regulatory guide, entitled, “Monitoring Criteria and Methods to Calculate Occupational Radiation Doses,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG–8031. The DG–8031 is proposed revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.34, dated July 1992.
The NRC issued RG 8.34 in 1992, to provide guidance on acceptable methods of monitoring and calculating occupational radiation doses. On December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68043), the NRC revised the definition of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) in part 20 of Title 10 of the
As a result of the changed definition of TEDE, RG 8.34 is inconsistent with the current regulatory rule. Therefore, RG 8.34 needs to be revised to reflect the rule change. In addition, the NRC staff has incorporated guidance on how to calculate occupational radiation doses for wound contamination to the extremities into this draft revision of RG 8.34.
This draft regulatory guide, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and would not be otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this draft regulatory guide, the NRC has no current intention to impose this draft regulatory guide on holders of current operating licenses, early site permits or combined licenses, unless this draft regulatory guide becomes part of the licensing basis for the facility.
If this draft regulatory guide is finalized, the NRC may apply the revised regulatory guide to applications for operating licenses, early site permits and combined licenses docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the revised regulatory guide, as well as to future applications for operating licenses, early site permits and combined licenses submitted after the issuance of the revised regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) nor be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR Part 52, because such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of changes to systems of records and addition of routine uses.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974,
Comments on the new systems of records, proposed routine uses, and technical and clarifying changes must be received on or before November 25, 2013. The new systems of records, routine uses, and technical and clarifying changes will become effective on December 9, 2013 without further notice, unless comments result in a contrary determination and a notice is published to that effect.
You may submit written comments to PBGC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to
Marla Greenberg, Attorney, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–326–4400 or 1–800–400–7242, extension 3110 (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4400). For access to any of the PBGC's systems of records, contact PBGC's Disclosure Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Disclosure Division, at the above address, 202–326–4040 or 1–800–400–7242.
The PBGC is proposing to add two new systems of records, PBGC–21, Reasonable Accommodation Records—PBGC; and PBGC–22, Telework and Alternative Worksite Records—PBGC. In addition, PBGC is proposing to alter the following systems of records maintained pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974,
For PBGC–2, Disbursements—PBGC, PBGC is amending Routine Use 1 to broaden the purpose of sharing information with the Department of the Treasury to enable PBGC to verify consultants' and vendors' eligibility to receive payments. This revision will enable PBGC to both effect payments to
For PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC, PBGC is proposing to revise four existing routine uses. Routine Use 1, as revised, will permit the information of participants and beneficiaries of pension plans covered under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to be shared with parties outside of PBGC that elect to pay a supplemental pension benefit to those participants and beneficiaries. Routine Use 6, as revised, will no longer require that a request for information be notarized. This change will remove a barrier to requests made electronically. PBGC has also determined it is prudent to revise Routine Use 7 to provide PBGC with discretion to notify participants about information disclosed to an alternate payee (or their representative) under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Routine Use 12, as revised, will consolidate what were previously two separately-stated routine uses of the information by the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of the Public Debt and the Social Security Administration. This revision will also allow PBGC to disclose payee information to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to permit PBGC to verify payees' social security numbers through an IRS matching program.
In addition, PBGC is planning to add three new routine uses to PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC. The newly proposed Routine Use 8 will provide a participant with the same right to information that Routine Use 7 provides for an alternate payee to allow a participant to pursue an administrative appeal of a benefit determination. The newly proposed Routine Use 9 will allow PBGC to disclose information needed to explain PBGC's calculation of a benefit affected by a QDRO to participants and alternate payees. PBGC's newly proposed Routine Use 13 will allow PBGC to determine which of its payees who currently receive their benefits by paper check have electronic debit card accounts and will enable PBGC to pay benefits through these electronic deposit accounts.
Finally, PBGC is removing the applicability of PBGC's General Routine Use G13 to PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC. PBGC has determined that General Routine Use G13, which allows PBGC to disclose information contained within a system of records to a federal agency in connection with hiring or retaining an employee, does not apply to this system of records.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled, “PBGC–21, Reasonable Accommodation Records—PBGC.” This proposed system of records is necessary to the functions performed by the Human Resources Department (“HRD”), and will cover only those files that identify by name, or other personal identifier, individuals who request or receive reasonable accommodations. The system includes records that are used to determine qualification for reasonable accommodation for prospective, current, or former employees, including medical documentation. Additionally, records maintained in this system may include an employee's name, personal address, and other personal contact information; the employee's occupational series and grade level; the employee's operating division/function office location, mailing address, telephone number, and email address; information about the individual's disability or medical condition; type of reasonable accommodation requested; explanation of how a reasonable accommodation would assist the employee in the performance of his/her job; relevant medical documentation and other supporting documents; deciding official's name and title; essential duties of the position; information relating to an individual's capability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position currently held; estimated cost of accommodation; whether the accommodation was requested pre-employment or during employment with the agency; the amount of time taken to process the request; whether the request was granted or denied, and, if denied, the reason for the denial; the sources of technical assistance consulted in trying to identify possible reasonable accommodations; and other supporting documents relating to reasonable accommodation.
HRD, as it has always done, will continue to respect the privacy of individuals named in these files and will disclose, within the boundaries of the law, the least amount of information necessary to perform its responsibilities.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system are not new because records of the same type have been collected and maintained in HRD since the establishment of PBGC's reasonable accommodation program. Electronic information will be kept in an environment with physical security, including protection by network and system-specific user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set and periodically changed by authorized users. Computers and hard copy records are maintained in a secured environment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal. A report on the proposed system has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
PBGC is proposing to establish a new system of records entitled, “PBGC–22, Telework and Alternative Worksite Records—PBGC.” The proposed system of records is necessary to the functions performed by the Workplace Solutions Department (“WSD”), and will cover only those files that identify by name, or other personal identifier, individuals who have been granted or denied authorization to participate in PBGC's Telework Program to work at an alternative worksite apart from their official PBGC duty station. The system includes records that are used to determine a prospective, current, or former employee's qualification to participate in PBGC's Telework Program, including medical documentation. Additionally, records maintained in this system may include an employee's name, position title, grade, job series, and department name; official PBGC duty station address and telephone number; alternative worksite address and telephone number(s); date telework agreement received and approved/denied; telework request and approval form; telework agreement, self-certification home safety checklist, and supervisor-employee checklist; type of telework requested (e.g., episodic or regular); regular work schedule; telework schedule; approvals/disapprovals; description and list of government-owned equipment and software provided to the teleworker; mass transit benefits received through PBGC's mass transit subsidy program; parking subsidies received through PBGC's subsidized parking program; medical documentation necessitating medical telework; and any other
WSD, as it has always done, will continue to respect the privacy of individuals named in these files and will disclose, within the boundaries of the law, the least amount of information necessary to perform its responsibilities.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system are not new because records of the same type have been collected and maintained in WSD since the establishment of PBGC's Telework program. Electronic information will be kept in an environment with physical security, including protection by network and system-specific user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set and changed periodically by authorized users. Computers and hard copy records are maintained in a secured environment.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal. A report on the proposed system has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
PBGC is amending PBGC–2, Disbursements—PBGC, and PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC. For its system of records, PBGC–2, Disbursements—PBGC, PBGC is correcting and updating the category of records maintained in this system of records. PBGC is also proposing to amend another system of records, PBGC–6, Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC, to enable third parties to pay supplemental pension benefits outside the scope of Title IV of ERISA to participants and beneficiaries. These amendments clarify the nature and purposes of these systems of records and reflect changes that have occurred since they were last published.
Disbursements—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026; PBGC, 1275 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026; PBGC Benefits Service, 2500 Grubb Road, Suites 140 and 221, Wilmington, DE 19810; PBGC Document Management Center, 5971 Kingstowne Village Parkway, Alexandria, VA 2231.
Individuals who are consultants and vendors to the PBGC.
Acquisition data for the procurement of goods and services. Consultant or vendor
29 U.S.C. 1302; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained for use in determining amounts to be paid and in effecting payments by the Department of the Treasury to consultants and vendors.
1. A record from this system of records may be transmitted to the United States Department of
2. General Routine Uses G1 through G7, G9 through G12 apply to this system of records.
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) and/or (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained by PBGC manually in file folders and/or in electronic format, including computer databases, magnetic tapes, or discs.
Records are indexed by name, tax payer identification number, and contract number.
Records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and are protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Pursuant to PBGC's Simplified Records Schedule 1.2, PBGC retains the records for
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable PBGC media sanitization practice.
Director, Financial Operations Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Individuals who are consultants and vendors to the PBGC.
None.
Plan Participant and Beneficiary Data—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026 and/or field benefit administrator, plan administrator, and paying agent worksites.
Participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries in terminating and terminated pension plans covered by Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).
Names, addresses, telephone numbers, sex, social security numbers and other Social Security Administration information, dates of birth, dates of hire, salary, marital status, domestic relations orders, time of plan participation, eligibility status, pay status, benefit data, health-related information, insurance information where plan benefits are provided by private insurers, pension plan names and numbers, and initial and final PBGC determinations (29 CFR 4003.21 and 4003.59). The records listed herein are included only as pertinent or applicable to the individual plan participant, alternate payee, or beneficiary.
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1321, 1322, 1322a, 1341, 1342 and 1350; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is maintained for use in determining whether participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries are eligible for benefits under plans covered by Title IV of ERISA,
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to third parties, such as banks, insurance companies, or trustees, to enable these third parties to make or determine benefit payments
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same controlled group.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, upon request for a purpose authorized under Title IV of ERISA, to an official of a labor organization recognized as the
4. Payees' names, addresses, and telephone numbers and information pertaining to debts owed by such payees to the PBGC may be disclosed to the
5. The name and social security number of a participant employed or formerly employed as a pilot by a commercial airline may be disclosed to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to obtain information relevant to the participant's eligibility or continued eligibility for disability benefits.
6. The name of a participant's pension plan, the actual or estimated amount of a participant's benefit under Title IV of ERISA, the form(s) in which the benefit is payable, and whether the participant is currently receiving benefit payments under the plan or (if not) the earliest date(s) such payments could commence may be disclosed to the participant's spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent solely to obtain a qualified domestic relations order under 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p). The PBGC will disclose the information only upon the receipt of a written request by a prospective alternate payee, or
7. Information from a participant's initial determination under 29 CFR 4003.1(b) (excluding the participant's address, telephone number, social security number, and any sensitive medical information) may be disclosed to an alternate payee, or their representative, under a qualified domestic relations order issued pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1056(d) and 26 U.S.C. 414(p) to explain how the PBGC determined the benefit due the alternate payee so that the alternate payee can pursue an administrative appeal of the benefit determination under 29 CFR 4003.51. The PBGC
Information may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(f) (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)).
Records are maintained in paper, microfiche, and electronic form.
Records are indexed by plan name and number, and participant and/or beneficiary name. Customer satisfaction survey responses are aggregated for statistical purposes after they have been received by the PBGC and are not retrievable by a participant or beneficiary's name or other assigned identifier.
Paper and microfiche records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically.
Records for participants in a particular plan are destroyed
Director, Benefit
Procedures are detailed in the PBGC's regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Plan administrators, participants, alternate payees, and beneficiaries, the FAA, and the IRS.
None.
PBGC–21, Reasonable Accommodation Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Prospective, current, and former employees of the PBGC who request or receive a reasonable accommodation under Sections 501, 504, and 701 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008. This also includes authorized individuals or representatives (e.g., family members, union representatives, or attorneys) who file requests for reasonable accommodation on behalf of an applicant for employment, current employees, and former employees.
Records that are used to determine qualification for reasonable accommodation, including medical documentation. The records may include requests for reasonable accommodation, as well as position descriptions, medical records, notes or records made during consideration of requests, and decisions on requests. Additionally, records may include an employee's name, personal address, and other personal contact information; the employee's occupational series and grade level; the employee's operating division/function, office location, mailing address, telephone number, and email address; information about the nature of the individual's disability or medical condition; type of reasonable accommodation requested; explanation of how a reasonable accommodation would assist the employee in the performance of his/her job; relevant medical documentation and other supporting documents; deciding official's name and title; essential duties of the position; information relating to an individual's capability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position currently held; estimated cost of accommodation; whether the accommodation was requested pre-employment or during employment with the agency; the amount of time taken to process the request; whether the request was granted or denied, and, if denied, the reason for the denial; the sources of technical assistance consulted in trying to identify possible reasonable accommodations; and other supporting documents relating to reasonable accommodation.
If an accommodation request is made by a family member, health professional, attorney, or representative of a PBGC employee or applicant, the records may contain the requester's name, email address, mailing address, telephone number, and any additional information provided by the requester relating to the processing of the request.
Sections 501, 504, and 701 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; ADA Amendments of 2008; Executive Order 13164 (July 28, 2000); and Executive Order 13548 (July 10, 2010).
The purpose of this system is to allow PBGC to collect and maintain records on prospective, current, and former employees with disabilities who requested or received reasonable accommodation by PBGC as required by Sections 501, 504, and 701 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to physicians or other medical professionals to provide them with or obtain from them the necessary medical documentation and/or certification for reasonable accommodation.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to another federal agency or commission with responsibility for labor or employment relations or other issues, including equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation issues, when that agency or commission has jurisdiction over reasonable accommodation issues.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to obtain advice regarding statutory, regulatory, policy, and other requirements related to reasonable accommodation.
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate third-parties contracted by the Agency to facilitate mediation or other dispute resolution procedures or programs.
5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Defense (DOD) for purposes of procuring assistive technologies and services through the Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program in response to a request for reasonable accommodation.
6. General Routine Uses G1 through G13.
None.
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or in automated form, including computer databases, magnetic tapes, or discs. Records are also maintained on PBGC's network back-up tapes.
Records are indexed and retrieved using employee name and fiscal year of request for (or receipt of) reasonable accommodation.
Paper records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Only authorized personnel may be given access to either the secured area or the locked file cabinet. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning both network and system-specific user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically. Access to electronic records is limited to only those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Pursuant to NARA General Records Schedule (GRS) 1 Section 24, records are maintained for three years from the employee's separation from PBGC or after all appeals have concluded, whichever is later. Records are also maintained on PBGC's network back-up tapes. All medical information, including information about functional limitations and reasonable accommodation needs obtained in connection with a request for reasonable accommodation, must be kept confidential and shall be maintained in files separate from the individual's official personnel file. Additionally, employees who obtain or receive such information are strictly bound by these confidentiality requirements. Whenever medical information is disclosed, the individual disclosing the information must inform the recipients of the information about the confidentiality requirements that attach to it.
Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, Human Resources Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Prospective, current, and former PBGC employees.
None.
Telework and Alternative Worksite Records—PBGC.
Not applicable.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Prospective, current, and former employees of the PBGC who have been granted or denied authorization to participate in PBGC's Telework Program to work at an alternative worksite apart from their official PBGC duty station.
Records include an employee's name, position title, grade, job series, and department name; official PBGC duty station address and telephone number; alternative worksite address and telephone number(s); date telework agreement received and approved/denied; telework request and approval form; telework agreement, self-certification home safety checklist, and supervisor-employee checklist; type of telework requested (e.g., episodic or regular); regular work schedule; telework schedule; approvals/disapprovals; description and list of government-owned equipment and software provided to the teleworker; mass transit benefits received through PBGC's mass transit subsidy program; parking subsidies received through PBGC's subsidized parking program; medical documentation necessitating medical telework; and any other miscellaneous documents supporting telework.
5 U.S.C. 6120, Telecommuting in Executive Agencies; 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.
The purpose of this system is to allow PBGC to collect and maintain records on prospective, current, and former employees who seek to participate in PBGC's Telework Program.
1. A record from this system may be disclosed to medical professionals to obtain information about an employee's medical background necessary to grant or deny approval of medical telework.
2. A record from this system may be disclosed to federal, state, or local governments during actual emergencies, exercises, or continuity of operations tests for the purposes of emergency preparedness and responding to emergency situations.
3. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Department of Labor when an employee is injured when working at home while in the performance of normal duties.
4. A record from this system may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for use in its Telework Survey to provide consolidated data on participation in PBGC's Telework Program.
5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate third-parties contracted by the Agency to facilitate mediation or other dispute resolution procedures or programs.
6. PBGC's General Routine Uses G1 through G13 also apply to this system of records.
None.
Records are maintained manually in file folders and/or in automated form, including computer databases, magnetic tapes, or discs. Records are also maintained on PBGC's network back-up tapes.
Records are indexed and retrieved using employee name and by the department in which the employee works, will work, or previously worked.
Paper records are kept in file cabinets in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours. Only authorized personnel may be given access to either the secured area or the locked file cabinet. Electronic records are stored on computer networks and protected by assigning both network and system-specific user identification numbers to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically. Access to electronic records is limited only to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Records are destroyed two years after the employee's participation in the program ends. Unapproved requests are destroyed two years after the request is rejected.
Telework Coordinator, Workplace Solutions Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026.
Procedures are detailed in PBGC regulations: 29 CFR Part 4902.
Same as notification procedure.
Same as notification procedure.
Prospective, current, and former PBGC employees.
None.
78 FR 60334 (October 1, 2013).
Wednesday, October 9, 2013, beginning at 11 a.m.
The Commission cancelled the October 9, 2013 meeting. The Commission posted notice of the cancellation on its Web site on Tuesday, October 1, 2013. The Commission is not rescheduling the October 9, 2013 meeting.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).
Notice of a hearing.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) will conduct a public hearing with current and former government officials and others to address the activities and responsibilities of the executive and judicial branches of the federal government regarding the government's counterterrorism surveillance programs. This hearing will continue the PCLOB's study of the federal government's surveillance programs operated pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recommendations for changes to these programs and the operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will be considered at the hearing to ensure that counterterrorism efforts properly balance the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. Visit
Monday, November 4, 2013; 9:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
You may submit comments with the docket number PCLOB–2013–0005; Sequence 7 by the following method:
•
• Written comments may be submitted at any time prior to the closing of the docket at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on November 14, 2013. This comment period has been extended from October 25, 2013, as a result of the new hearing date.
All comments will be made publicly available and posted without change. Do not include personal or confidential information.
Mayflower Renaissance Hotel Washington, 1127 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington DC 20036. Facility's location is near Farragut North Metro station.
Susan Reingold, Chief Administrative
The hearing will be open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Susan Reingold, Chief Administrative Officer, 202–331–1986, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
CME is filing proposed rules changes that are limited to its business as a derivatives clearing organization. The new CME rule simply specifies that CME will discharge any swap data reporting obligations it has with respect to the swaps it clears under applicable Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) by making reports to the CME SDR.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CME is registered as a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and currently offers clearing services for swaps products. In connection with its business as a DCO clearing swaps, CME is required to make certain reports regarding the swaps it clears to a swap data repository (“SDR”) registered with the CFTC in accordance with applicable CFTC regulations.
The rule that is the subject of this filing, CME Rule 1001, specifies that CME DCO will discharge any applicable swap reporting requirements that it has in its capacity as a DCO clearing swaps by making reports to the CME SDR. CME Rule 1001 was reviewed and affirmatively approved by the CFTC.
The scope of CME Rule 1001 is limited to CME's business as a derivatives clearing organization clearing products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). CME Rule 1001 does not materially impact CME's security-based swap clearing business in any way. As such, the changes will be effective upon filing.
CME believes the rule that is the subject of this filing is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
Furthermore, the rule is limited in its effect to swaps offered under CME's authority to act as a derivatives clearing organization. Swaps fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. As such, the proposed CME changes are limited to CME's activities as a derivatives clearing organization clearing swaps that are not security-based swaps; CME notes that the policies of the CFTC with respect to administering the Commodity Exchange Act are comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act, such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions and protecting investors and the public interest.
Because the changes are limited in their effect to swaps offered under CME's authority to act as a derivatives clearing organization, the changes are properly classified as effecting a change in an existing service of CME that:
(a) Primarily affects the clearing operations of CME with respect to products that are not securities, including futures that are not security futures, and swaps that are not security-based swaps or mixed swaps; and
(b) does not significantly affect any securities clearing operations of CME or any rights or obligations of CME with respect to securities clearing or persons using such securities-clearing service.
CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. As a general matter, CME Rule 1001 should not be seen to have any effect on competition because it does not act as a restraint.
CME Rule 1001 simply codifies how CME's clearinghouse will discharge its own CFTC-required swap data reporting obligations for swaps cleared by CME in an operationally efficient manner. The Rule states that CME will discharge any DCO reporting obligations it has by making required swap data reports regarding CME-cleared swaps to its affiliated SDR. In addition, it should be noted that the Rule separately provides that CME will also make voluntary, supplemental reports regarding the same cleared swap data it reports to the CME SDR to any third party swap data repositories selected by any counterparty to a swap cleared at CME. The reporting arrangements contemplated by Rule 1001 regarding swaps under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC were reviewed and approved by the CFTC.
CME separately submitted Rule 1001 to the CFTC for affirmative approval pursuant to Regulation 40.5 of CFTC Regulations. This process involved a public comment period. A series of comment letters from various market participants were submitted. These letters made a variety of arguments alleging that CME Rule 1001 was inconsistent with the Commodity Exchange Act. CME submitted multiple response letters addressing these arguments. After a lengthy review process, the CFTC concluded that “CME Rule is not inconsistent with either the [Commodity Exchange] Act or the regulatory structure implemented by the Commission to effectuate the Act.” All of the industry comment letters, CME's response letters, the CFTC's approval order and separate CFTC Commissioners statements regarding Rule 1001 can be found at the following public Web site:
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–CME–2013–19 and should be submitted on or before November 15, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to conform to the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Exchange Act.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The 17d–2 Agreement between the Exchange and FINRA covers common members of both self-regulatory organizations and allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility, with respect to common members, for the following: (1) Examination of common members of the Exchange and FINRA for compliance with federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, and rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules; (2) investigation of common members of EDGX and FINRA for violations of federal securities laws, rules, or regulations, or Exchange rules that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially identical to a FINRA rule; and (3) enforcement of compliance by common members with the federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, and the rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The 17d–2 Agreement included a certification by the Exchange that states that the requirements contained in certain Exchange rules are identical to, or substantially similar to, certain FINRA rules that have been identified as comparable. To conform to the comparable FINRA rule for purposes of the 17d–2 Agreement, the Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to align with FINRA Rule 4513.
EDGX Rule 4.3 currently requires that members keep and preserve written customer complaints
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to decrease the record retention requirements under EDGX Rule 4.3 from five to four years.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among similar Exchange and FINRA rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members and facilitating FINRA's performance of its regulatory functions under the 17d–2 Agreement.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Accordingly, the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange 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 Exchange 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 Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR–EDGX–2013–39 and should be submitted on or before November 15, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend EDGA Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to conform to the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) for purposes of an agreement between the Exchange and FINRA pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Exchange Act.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The 17d–2 Agreement between the Exchange and FINRA covers common members of both self-regulatory organizations and allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility, with respect to common members, for the following: (1) Examination of common members of the Exchange and FINRA for compliance with federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, and rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules; (2) investigation of common members of EDGA and FINRA for violations of federal securities laws, rules, or regulations, or Exchange rules that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially identical to a FINRA rule; and (3) enforcement of compliance by common members with the federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, and the rules of the Exchange that the Exchange has certified as identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The 17d–2 Agreement included a certification by the Exchange that states that the requirements contained in certain Exchange rules are identical to, or substantially similar to, certain FINRA rules that have been identified as comparable. To conform to the comparable FINRA rule for purposes of the 17d–2 Agreement, the Exchange proposes to amend EDGA Rule 4.3, Record of Written Complaints, to align with FINRA Rule 4513.
EDGA Rule 4.3 currently requires that members keep and preserve written customer complaints
The Exchange, therefore, proposes to decrease the record retention requirements under EDGA Rule 4.3 from five to four years.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to provide greater harmonization among similar Exchange and FINRA rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members and facilitating FINRA's performance of its regulatory functions under the 17d–2 Agreement.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act
Accordingly, the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange 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 Exchange 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 Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to harmonize the quantitative continued listing standards applicable to companies listed under Sections 102.01C and 103.01B of the Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”). Under the proposed amendment, a company will be considered to be below compliance standards if its average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50,000,000 and, at the same time, its total stockholders' equity is less than $50,000,000. 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 harmonize the quantitative continued listing standards applicable to companies listed under Sections 102.01C and 103.01B of the Manual (“operating companies”).
The Exchange's financial initial listing standards for domestic operating companies are set forth in Section 102.01C of the Manual and financial initial listing standards applicable to non-U.S. operating companies are set forth in Section 103.01B of the Manual.
The following are the current continued listing standards specific to operating companies listed under the various initial listing standards:
• A company that qualified to list under the Earnings Test set out in Sections 102.01C(I) or 103.01B(I), or pursuant to the requirements set forth under the Assets and Equity Test set forth in Section 102.01C(IV) or the “Initial Listing Standard for Companies Transferring from NYSE Arca” (this standard is no longer in existence and was operative from October 1, 2008 until August 31, 2009), will be considered to be below compliance standards if average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50,000,000 and, at the same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $50,000,000.
• A company that qualified to list under the Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test set out in Section 102.01C(II)(a) or Section 103.01B(II)(a) will be considered to be below compliance standards if:
○ average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $250,000,000 and, at the same time, total revenues are less than $20,000,000 over the last 12 months (unless the company qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards); or
○ average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $75,000,000.
• A company that qualified to list under the Pure Valuation/Revenue Test set out in Section 102C.01(II)(b) or in Section 103.01B(II)(b) will be considered to be below compliance standards if:
○ average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $375,000,000 and, at the same time, total revenues are less than $15,000,000 over the last 12 months (unless the company qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards); or
○ average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $100,000,000.
• A company that qualified to list under the Affiliated Company Test set out in Section 102C.01(III) or Section 103.01B(III) will be considered to be below compliance standards if:
○ the listed company's parent/affiliated company ceases to control the listed company, or the listed company's parent/affiliated company itself falls below the continued listing standards applicable to the parent/affiliated company, and
○ average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $75,000,000 and, at the same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $75,000,000.
The Exchange proposes to amend the applicable continued listing standards such that every operating company will be subject to the same standards regardless of the standard under which such company initially qualified. The proposed amendment to Section 802.01B of the Manual will state that an operating company will be considered to be below compliance standards if its average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50,000,000 and, at the same time, its total stockholders' equity is less than $50,000,000 (the “Proposed Continued Listing Standard”).
Currently, to determine whether an operating company complies with continued listing standards, the Exchange first looks to the financial standard under which the company initially qualified for listing and then applies the continued listing standard specified as applicable to that initial listing standard. The practical impact of this policy is that a company may be deemed noncompliant with the continued listing standard associated with the initial financial listing standard under which it originally qualified to list, notwithstanding the fact that it would have remained in compliance if subject to one of the other continued listing standards. This creates the anomalous result that two companies could have identical quantitative characteristics, yet one company would be deemed noncompliant and the other would remain compliant, purely on the basis of the initial listing standards under which the respective companies qualified to list many years previously. The Exchange believes this potential for disparate treatment is unfair to a listed company and its shareholders in the circumstance that a company is deemed noncompliant or delisted notwithstanding the fact that it would have remained compliant if one of the other continued listing standards was applicable. Moreover, many listed companies evolve subsequent to initial listing, and the idea that a company should be subject indefinitely to continued listing criteria tailored to the type of company it was at the time of initial listing no longer seems appropriate.
The Exchange notes that the approach of assigning different quantitative continued listing requirements to
The Exchange acknowledges that the other currently applicable continued listing standards have higher minimum quantitative requirements for average market capitalization than the Proposed Continued Listing Standard. Most notably, the $50,000,000 minimum average market capitalization requirement of the Proposed Continued Listing Standard is lower than the minimum average market capitalization requirements of all of the other currently existing continued listing standards. However, the Exchange believes that, the proposed adoption of the Proposed Continued Listing Standard will not result in any meaningful weakening of the quality of companies listed on the Exchange. In that regard, the Exchange notes that almost all companies that are currently below compliance with their applicable financial continued listing standard will also be below compliance with the Proposed Continued Listing Standard at the time of its adoption. Further, the Exchange notes that more than 87% of the operating companies currently listed on the Exchange are already subject to a continued listing standard identical to the Proposed Continued Listing Standard. For those companies, therefore, there will be no change to their continued listing obligations as a result of the proposed rule change.
With regard to companies that are currently subject to one of the other continued listing standards, the Exchange believes that adoption of the Proposed Continued Listing Standard will not result in the continued listing of a meaningful number of companies that would be subject to delisting under the current continued listing standards. In reaching this conclusion, the Exchange reviewed all companies that were identified as below compliance for any of the financial standards between 2006 and 2012. Approximately 22% of the identified companies during that period were subject to a continued listing standard other than the Proposed Continued Listing Standard. Of those 22% of companies, a majority would have been cited for noncompliance with either the Proposed Continued Listing Standard or the Minimum Listing Criteria.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with Rule 3a51–1(a)(2)(ii) (the “Penny Stock Rule”)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is being made to rationalize the continued listing standards for operating companies listed on the Exchange. As the Exchange's research has indicated that this change will be unlikely to have any meaningful effect on the number of companies that will be delisted, the Exchange believes that it will not have any effect on the competition among listing markets and will result in no burden on competition.
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 Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 (“Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the BOX Rules to conform to the corresponding rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rules 4020 (Opening of Accounts), 4050 (Discretionary Accounts), and 4060 (Confirmation to Public Customers) to conform to the corresponding rules of FINRA.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 4020(f)(3) to clarify the person responsible for approving accounts that do not meet the specific criteria and standards for writing uncovered short options transactions and for maintaining written records of the reasons for every account so approved. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace the terms “Senior Options Principal and/or Compliance Options Principal” with the term “a specific Options Principal(s).” The terms “Senior Options Principal and/or Compliance Options Principal” are not used anywhere else in the BOX Rules, while the term “Options Principal” is used in similar provisions and is already defined in the BOX Rules.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4050. First, the Exchange proposes to remove section (a)(2). The Exchange believes that the requirement found in section (a)(2)—that each discretionary order be reviewed and approved on a daily basis—is no longer necessary and consequently overly burdensome. Second, the Exchange proposes to add a new section to Rule 4050, entitled “
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add language to Rule 4060(b) to state that written confirmations relating to options transactions do not need to specify the exchange or exchanges on which an option is executed. The Exchange believes that requiring written confirmations relating to options transactions specify the exchange or exchanges on which an option is executed is overly burdensome in light of the recent increase in order routing to away exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would provide greater certainty to OFPs regarding the Exchange's rules by aligning them more closely with the corresponding FINRA rules. Moreover, the Exchange believes that aligning these rules more closely with the corresponding FINRA rules would aid in FINRA's enforcement of the Exchange's rules. Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would remove provisions that are no longer necessary and are now overly burdensome.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Section 6(b),
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would promote consistency between the Exchange's rules and FINRA's rules and provide uniform rules governing how OFPs conduct business with the public. By promoting consistency with FINRA's rules, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would facilitate FINRA's enforcement of the Exchange's rules. By providing uniform rules governing how OFPs conduct business with the public, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would foster certainty for market participants. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote a free and open market and a national market system and the protection of investors and the public interest.
As stated above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would clarify certain provisions of the Exchange's rules and make them substantially similar to the corresponding FINRA rules.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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 Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BOX–2013–50 and should be submitted on or before November 15, 2013.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
ITS Joint Program Office, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a meeting by web conference on November 18, 2013, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT).
The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109–59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 53003 of Public Law 112–141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, July 6, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITSPAC makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) Welcome and Introductions, (2) Safety Pilot Update, (3) Review of Deployment Incentives Report, (4) Review of Draft Final Recommendations, and (5) Next Steps and Remaining Tasks.
The web conference will be open to the public, but limited conference lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to participate in the web conference must request approval from Mr. Stephen Glasscock, the Committee Designated Federal Official, at (202) 366–9126, not later than November 11, 2013. You must request Mr. Glasscock's approval also to present oral statements during the web conference.
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493–2027. The ITS Joint Program Office requests that written comments be submitted not later than November 11, 2013.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102–3) covering management of Federal advisory committees.
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, for Bob Hope Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety
This notice is effective October 25, 2013 and applicable October 10, 2013.
Victor Globa, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009–2007. Street Address: 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261. Telephone: 310/725–3637. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Bob Hope Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as “Part 150”), effective October 10, 2013. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” as defined in section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 1, 2012 Noise Exposure Contour (Existing Condition); Exhibit 2, 2017 Noise Exposure Contours (Forecast Condition). The FAA has determined that these Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on October 10, 2013.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on certain information collections pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 24, 2013.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number (PHMSA–2010–0223) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH–12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division (PHH–12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.
Section 1320.8 (d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for renewal and extension. These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collections were last approved. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for each information collection activity and, when approved by OMB, publish a notice of the approval in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
Number of Respondents: 8,770.
Total Annual Responses: 86,100.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 66,390.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The information collected under these application procedures is used in the review process by PHMSA in determining the merits of the petitions for rulemakings and for reconsideration of rulemakings, as well as applications for special permits, preemption determinations, and waivers of preemption to the HMR. The procedures governing these petitions for rulemaking and for reconsideration of rulemakings
Mule Sidetracks, L.L.C. (MSLLC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to: (1) Purchase a line of railroad owned by the Columbiana County Port Authority (CCPA) and currently operated by the Youngstown & Southeastern Railway Company (Y&SR), between milepost 0.0 in Youngstown, Ohio, and milepost 35.7 in Darlington, Pa. (the Line); and (2) receive from CCPA permanent assignments of CCPA's agreements and operating rights to approximately 3 miles of continuous track segments running east of milepost 0.0 that connect to the Line and that,
According to MSLLC, it will be a common carrier on the Line, and, once it acquires the Line, MSLLC intends to continue operations with Y&SR.
The transaction may be consummated on or after November 8, 2013, the effective date of the exemption.
MSLLC certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed $5 million and will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35773, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on MSLLC's counsel, Richard H. Streeter, Law Offices of Richard H. Streeter, 5255 Partridge Lane NW., Washington, DC 20016.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”); National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”); Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”); and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Notice of proposed interagency policy statement with request for public comment.
The OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC (each an “Agency” and collectively, the “Agencies”) are proposing joint standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the entities they regulate. Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”)
Comments must be received on or before December 24, 2013.
Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments to any of the Agencies listed below. To avoid duplication, the Agencies request that commenters not submit the same comment to more than one Agency. The Agencies will share comments with each other, as appropriate.
•
•
•
•
Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC–2013–0014” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. 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.
You may review comments that pertain to this notice by:
Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy
•
•
•
•
•
Please send comments by one method only.
All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
Please note: All comments received will be posted generally without change to
Please include your name, affiliation, address, email address and telephone number(s) in your comment. Where appropriate, comments should include a short Executive Summary (no more than five single-spaced pages). All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
• All submissions should refer to File Number S7–08–13. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us 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 (
Each Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) is headed by a Director who is responsible for Agency matters relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities. Section 342(b)(2)(C) requires each Agency's OMWI Director to develop standards for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.” Such standards take into account section 342(b)(4), which states that nothing in section 342(b)(2)(C) “may be construed to mandate any requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the findings of the assessment.”
The Agencies believe that a goal of section 342 is to promote transparency and awareness of diversity policies and practices within the entities regulated by the Agencies. The establishment of standards will provide guidance to the regulated entities and the public for assessing the diversity policies and practices of regulated entities. In addition, by facilitating greater awareness and transparency of the diversity policies and practices of regulated entities, the standards will provide the public a greater ability to assess diversity policies and practices of regulated entities. The Agencies recognize that greater diversity and inclusion promotes stronger, more effective, and more innovative businesses, as well as opportunities to serve a wider range of customers.
The Agencies believe that the term “assessment” encompasses many different types of assessments including self-assessment and provides an opportunity for the Agencies and the public to understand the diversity policies and practices of regulated entities. The assessment envisioned by the Agencies is not one of a traditional examination or other supervisory assessment. Thus, the Agencies will not use the examination or supervision process in connection with these proposed standards.
The Agencies are cognizant that regulated entities (a) with 100 or more employees; or (b) who are federal contractors with 50 or more employees and are prime contractors or first-tier subcontractors, with contracts of $50,000 or more are required to file an Employer Information Report EEO–1 (“EEO–1 Report”) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These reports contain data on the employment diversity at these regulated entities, and should assist the regulated entities in assessing their diversity policies and practices. We encourage regulated entities that are not required to file EEO–1 Reports to monitor and assess their diversity policies and practices and to use the proposed standards as a guide.
The OMWI Directors have worked together to develop a set of proposed standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the Agencies. In developing these standards, the Agencies took into account individual entities' circumstances (for example, asset size of the entity, number of employees, governance structure, income, number of members and/or customers, contract volume, geographic location, and community characteristics). We seek comments specifically on how we might better take into account individual entities' circumstances, especially for small regulated entities.
During 2012, to encourage input and to learn more about diversity policies and practices, the OMWI Directors and staff held a series of roundtable discussions and teleconferences across the country with representatives of depository institutions, holding companies, credit unions, and industry trade groups. These outreach efforts served as an opportunity for regulated entities to provide input on assessment standards and for the Agencies to learn about the challenges and successes of current diversity programs and policies.
The OMWI Directors also held roundtable discussions with members of groups representing financial services professionals, communities, and consumer advocates. These meetings provided the Agencies with a greater understanding of the issues facing minorities and women with respect to employment and business contracting opportunities within the financial services industry.
Based on feedback received from the outreach sessions, the Agencies together have drafted proposed standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the entities regulated by the Agencies. These proposed standards address a regulated entity's employment practices and its business practices with regard to the procurement of goods and services.
The Agencies recognize that these standards may need to change and improve over time. Accordingly, the Agencies are open to ideas and input from the public to strengthen and develop this policy statement. Legal responsibility for insured depository institutions, credit unions, and depository institution holding companies shall be with the primary prudential regulator with respect to section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act and these standards.
The proposed Statement follows.
Section 342 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 requires the Directors of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to develop standards by which the diversity policies and practices of the entities regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and Securities and Exchange Commission
An assessment of diversity policies and practices of the entities regulated by the Agencies may include the factors listed below. These standards may be tailored to take into consideration an individual entity's size and other characteristics (for example, total assets, number of employees, governance structure, revenues, number of members and/or customers, contract volume, geographic location, and community characteristics).
The leadership of a successful organization demonstrates its commitment to diversity and inclusion. Leadership comes from the governing body such as a board of directors, senior officials, and those managing the organization on a day-to-day basis. These standards inform how an entity promotes diversity and inclusion both in employment and contracting, and how an entity fosters a corporate culture that embraces diversity and inclusion.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The regulated entity includes diversity and inclusion considerations in both employment and contracting as an important part of its strategic plan including hiring, recruiting, retention and promotion.
• The entity has a diversity and inclusion policy that is approved and supported by senior leadership, including senior management and the board of directors.
• The entity provides regular progress reports to the board and/or senior management.
• The entity conducts equal employment opportunity and diversity and inclusion education and training on a regular and periodic basis.
• The entity has a senior level official who oversees and directs the entity's diversity efforts. For some institutions, these responsibilities are assigned to an executive-level Chief Diversity Officer (or equivalent position) with dedicated resources to support diversity strategies and initiatives. For other entities, such as smaller entities, these responsibilities are assigned to a senior officer with sufficient authority.
• The entity takes proactive steps to promote a diverse pool of candidates, including women and minorities, in its hiring, recruiting, retention, and promotion, as well as in its selection of board members, senior management, and other senior leadership positions.
Many entities promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in their workforce by publicizing employment opportunities, creating relationships with minority and women professional organizations and educational institutions, creating a culture that values the contribution of all employees, and encouraging focus on these objectives when evaluating performance of managers. Entities with diversity and inclusion programs regularly evaluate their programs and identify areas that can be improved.
Entities use various analytical tools to evaluate a wide range of business objectives, including metrics to track and measure the inclusiveness of their workforce (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender). Regulated entities that are subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reporting requirements
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• Entities that file an annual EEO–1 Report as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or otherwise track their workforce data, use the data to evaluate and assess workforce diversity and inclusion efforts.
• Entities that prepare annual Affirmative Action Plans as required by Executive Order 11246 under the jurisdiction of the OFCCP use those plans to evaluate and assess workforce diversity and inclusion efforts.
• The entity utilizes metrics to evaluate and assess workforce diversity and inclusion efforts, such as recruitment, applicant tracking, hiring, promotions, separations (voluntary and involuntary), career development support, coaching, executive seminars and retention across all levels and occupations of the organization including executive and managerial ranks.
• The entity holds management accountable for diversity and inclusion efforts.
• The entity has policies and practices that create diverse applicant pools for both internal and external opportunities that may include:
○ Outreach to minority and women organizations;
○ Outreach to educational institutions serving significant minority and women student populations; and
○ Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to attract minorities and women and inform them of employment and promotion opportunities.
We recognize that there is limited public information available on supplier diversity at regulated entities and it may be more challenging to compare supplier diversity policies and practices among regulated entities. Some smaller institutions may also face greater challenges in gathering such information.
Companies increasingly understand the competitive advantage of using a broader choice of available businesses with benefits such as price, quality, attention to detail, and future relationship building. A number of entities have achieved success at broadening the range of available business options by increasing outreach to minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
As in the employment context, entities often use metrics to know the baseline of how much they spend on procuring goods and services and contracting for other business services, how much they spend with minority-owned and women-owned businesses, the availability of relevant minority-owned and women-owned businesses, and the growth in usage over time. Similarly, entities can use outreach methods to inform minority-owned and women-owned businesses (and affinity groups representing these constituencies) of the availability of these opportunities and the mechanism used by the entity for procurement.
In addition, entities' prime contractors often use subcontractors to fulfill the obligations of various contracts. The use of minority-owned and women-owned businesses as
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics,
• The entity has a supplier diversity policy that provides for a fair opportunity for minority-owned and women-owned businesses to compete in procurements of business goods and services. This includes contracts of all types, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of assets of the entity, and the making of equity investments by the entity.
• The entity has methods to evaluate and assess its supplier diversity, which may include metrics and analytics related to:
○ Annual contract spending by the entity;
○ Percentage spent with minority-owned and women-owned business contractors by race, ethnicity, and gender;
○ Percentage of contracts with minority-owned and women-owned business sub-contracts; and
○ Demographics of the workforce for contractors and subcontractors.
• The entity has practices to promote a diverse supplier pool which may include:
○ Outreach to minority-owned and women-owned contractors and representative organizations;
○ Participation in conferences, workshops and other events to attract minority-owned and women-owned firms and inform them of contracting opportunities; and
○ An ongoing process to publicize its procurement opportunities.
To promote the objectives of section 342, an entity's diversity and inclusion program should be transparent. Transparency and publicity can be an important aspect of assessing diversity policies and practices. Greater awareness and transparency can give members of the public information that allows them to assess those policies and practices. Entities can publicize information on their diversity and inclusion efforts through normal business methods, which can include, among other things, displaying information on their Web sites, in their promotional materials and in their annual reports to shareholders, if applicable. Making public an entity's commitment to diversity and inclusion, its plans for achieving diversity and inclusion, and its metrics used to measure success in both workplace and supplier diversity, informs a broad constituency—its investors, employees, potential employees and suppliers, customers, and the general community. Publication of this information can open new markets to new communities and can illustrate the progress that has been made toward an important business goal.
In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics, the regulated entity provides transparency in its activities regarding diversity and inclusion by making the following information available to the public annually through its public Web site or other appropriate communication methods:
• Its diversity and inclusion strategic plan;
• its commitment to diversity and inclusion; and
• its progress toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and procurement activities, which may include its:
○ current workforce and supplier demographic profiles;
○ current employment and procurement opportunities;
○ forecasts of potential employment and procurement opportunities; and
○ the availability and use of mentorship and developmental programs for employees and contractors.
In developing the standards proposed in this Statement, the Agencies believe that the term “assessment” contemplates both self-assessment and an opportunity for the Agencies and the public to understand the diversity policies and practices of regulated entities. The assessment envisioned by the Agencies is not one of a traditional examination or other supervisory assessment. Thus, the Agencies will not use the examination or supervision process in connection with these proposed standards.
A model assessment would include:
• A self-assessment utilizing the proposed standards to conduct a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the diversity and inclusion policies and practices, as stated in Section II (The Joint Standards).
• Voluntary disclosure to the appropriate Agency of the self-assessment and other information the entity deems relevant. The Agencies will monitor the information submitted over time for use as a resource in carrying out their diversity and inclusion responsibilities.
• The entity displays information on its public Web site and in its annual reports, and in other materials, regarding its efforts to comply with these proposed standards as an opportunity for more public awareness and understanding of its diversity policies and practices. The Agencies may periodically review information on regulated entities' public Web sites to monitor diversity and inclusion practices.
Entities that are required to file an EEO–1 Report are encouraged to use the proposed standards to develop and monitor diversity policies and practices. Entities that do not file EEO–1 Reports may also consider using the standards in a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other characteristics.
The OMWI Directors will also continue to reach out to regulated entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and methods of assessment.
The Agencies request comments on all aspects of this draft policy statement, including but not limited to those set forth below. The Agencies will revise the Statement as appropriate after a review of public comments.
(1) Are the proposed joint standards effective and appropriate to promote diversity and inclusion? Why or why not? If not, what standards would be appropriate and why? How would such standards support or hinder the objectives of section 342?
(2) Are the proposed joint standards sufficiently flexible but still effective to allow meaningful assessments of entities with a wide range of particular characteristics or circumstances (for example, asset size; number of employees; contract volume; income stream; and number of members and/or customers)? Are there other ways to approach the standards for smaller entities, such as those with small contracting dollar volumes or those not required to file EEO–1 reports? What other approaches or characteristics would be appropriate for any such
(3) What other factors, if any, would be useful in assessing the diversity policies and practices of the regulated entities, and why should such factors be considered? How would such factors support or hinder the objectives of section 342?
(4) Is the proposed model approach to assessment effective and appropriate to promote diversity and inclusion? Why or why not? If not, what approach would be appropriate and why? How would such approach support or hinder the objectives of Section 342?
(5) Would there be potential advantages or disadvantages of the proposed model approach to assessment? If so, what would they be?
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This notice requests comments on all forms used by business entity taxpayers:
Forms 1065, 1065–B, 1066, 1120, 1120–C, 1120–F, 1120–H, 1120–ND, 1120–S, 1120–SF, 1120–FSC, 1120–L, 1120–PC, 1120–REIT, 1120–RIC, 1120–POL; and all attachments to these forms (see the Appendix to this notice). With this notice, the IRS is also announcing significant changes to (1) the manner in which tax forms used by business taxpayers will be approved under the PRA and (2) its method of estimating the paperwork burden imposed on all business taxpayers.
Written comments should be received on or before December 24, 2013 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
Under the PRA, OMB assigns a control number to each “collection of information” that it reviews and approves for use by an agency. A single information collection may consist of one or more forms, recordkeeping requirements, and/or third-party disclosure requirements. Under the PRA and OMB regulations, agencies have the discretion to seek separate OMB approvals for business forms, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party reporting requirements or to combine any number of forms, recordkeeping requirements, and/or third-party disclosure requirements (usually related in subject matter) under one OMB Control Number. Agency decisions on whether to group individual requirements under a single OMB Control Number or to disaggregate them and request separate OMB Control Numbers are based largely on considerations of administrative practicality.
The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the burden for each collection of information. Accordingly, each OMB Control Number has an associated burden estimate. The burden estimates for each control number are displayed in (1) the PRA notices that accompany collections of information, (2)
As described below under the heading “New Burden Model,” the IRS's new Business Taxpayer Burden Model (BTBM) estimates of taxpayer burden are based on taxpayer characteristics and activities, taking into account, among other things, the forms and schedules generally used by those groups of business taxpayers and the recordkeeping and other activities needed to complete those forms. The BTBM represents the second phase of a long-term effort to improve the ability of IRS to measure the burden imposed on various groups of taxpayers by the federal tax system. While the new methodology provides a more accurate and comprehensive description of business taxpayer burden, it will not provide burden estimates on a form-by-form basis, as has been done under the previous methodology. When the prior model was developed in the mid-1980s, almost all tax returns were prepared manually, either by the taxpayer or a paid provider. In this context, it was determined that estimating burden on a form-by-form basis was an appropriate methodology. Today, over 90 percent of all business entity tax returns are prepared using software or with preparer assistance. In this
Currently, there are 206 forms used by business taxpayers. These include Forms
The BTBM estimates the aggregate burden imposed on business taxpayers, based upon their tax-related characteristics and activities. IRS therefore will seek OMB approval of all 206 business-related tax forms as a single “collection of information.” The aggregate burden of these tax forms will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1545–0123, which is currently assigned to Form 1120 and its schedules. OMB Control Number 1545–0123 will be displayed on all business tax forms and other information collections. As a result of this change, burden estimates for business taxpayers will now be displayed differently in PRA Notices on tax forms and other information collections, and in
Data from the new BTBM revise the estimates of the levels of burden experienced by business taxpayers when complying with the federal tax laws. It replaces the earlier burden measurement developed in the mid-1980s. Since that time, improved technology and modeling sophistication have enabled the IRS to improve the burden estimates. The new model provides taxpayers and the IRS with a more comprehensive understanding of the current levels of taxpayer burden. It reflects major changes over the past two decades in the way taxpayers prepare and file their returns. The new BTBM also represents a substantial step forward in the IRS's ability to assess likely impacts of administrative and legislative changes on business taxpayers.
The BTBM's approach to measuring burden focuses on the characteristics and activities of business taxpayers rather than the forms they use. Key determinants of taxpayer burden in the model are the type of entity, total assets, total receipts, and activities reported on the tax return (income, deductions, credits, etc). In contrast, the previous estimates primarily focused on the length and complexity of each tax form. The changes between the old and new burden estimates are due to the improved ability of the new methodology to measure burden and the expanded scope of what is measured. These changes create a one-time shift in the estimate of burden levels that reflects the better measurement of the new model. The differences in estimates between the models do not reflect any change in the actual burden experienced by taxpayers. Comparisons should not be made between these and the earlier published estimates, because the models measure burden in different ways.
Burden is defined as the time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by taxpayers to comply with the federal tax system. As has been done for individual taxpayer burden since 2005, both the time expended and the out-of-pocket costs for business taxpayers are estimated. The burden estimation methodology relies on surveys that measure time and out-of-pocket costs that taxpayers spend on pre-filing and filing activities. The methodology establishes econometric relationships between tax return characteristics and reported compliance costs. The methodology controls for the substitution of time and money by monetizing time and reporting total compliance costs in dollars. This methodology better reflects taxpayer compliance burden, because in a world of electronic tax preparation, time and out-of-pocket costs are governed by the information required rather than the form on which it is ultimately reported. Importantly, even where various businesses complete the same tax form lines, the new methodology differentiates the cost incurred to complete those forms based on characteristics of those businesses. Key business characteristics that serve as coefficients in the BTBM are:
The new model uses the following classifications of business taxpayers:
Each classification is further refined to separate large and small businesses, where a large business is generally defined as one having end of year assets totaling more than $10 million.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 below show the burden model estimates for each of the three classifications of business taxpayers. The data shown are the best estimates for 2013 business entity income tax returns available as of September 2013. The estimates are subject to change as new forms and data become available.
Amounts below are for FY2014. Reported time and cost burdens are national averages and do not necessarily reflect a “typical” case. Most taxpayers experience lower than average burden, with taxpayer burden varying considerably by taxpayer type. Detail may not add due to rounding.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB Control Number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or 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 agency, including whether the information will have 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 of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
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 Tuesday, November 19, 2013.
Linda Rivera at 1–888–912–1227 or (202) 622–8390.
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 Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 11:00 a.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) 622–8390, 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.
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, November 21, 2013.
Ellen Smiley or Patti Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
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, November 21, 2013, 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 Ms. Ellen Smiley or Ms. Patti Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley or Ms. Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, 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 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, November 27, 2013.
Susan Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638.
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, November 27, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at 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 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 Tuesday, November 12, 2013.
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 a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, November 12, 2013, at 2:00 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 Donna Powers. For more information please contact Ms. 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:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to the Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 25, 2013.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
The VA's Principles of Excellence Complaint System (PoECS) will leverage DoD's complaint system to intake and manage complaints utilizing their systems architecture with each agency only having access to their data. The complainants will access the complaint system through the GI Bill Web site and eBenefits portal. Veterans, family members, or other members of the public will be able to open links at either VA Web site location and enter the requested information. Complainants will be offered the opportunity to review the information in their complaint prior to clicking on the submit button. Once a complaint is submitted, the complainant will receive an email verifying that the complaint was received. At this point, the complaint will be stored in the complaint system and be available to select VA employees for review. VA will review the complaint and on behalf of the complainant will share the complaint with the institution which is subject of the complaint. VA will request the institution to formally respond to the complaint within 90 days. If an institution fails to respond within 90 days, VA will contact the institution and request a status update. Once VA receives a response from the institution, VA will forward the response to the complainant. At this point, VA will close the case. Valid complaints received will be transmitted to the central repository at FTC Consumer Sentinel. The information in the central repository is the same information provided by the complainant. Authorized law enforcement officials who have been granted access to the FTC Consumer Sentinel database will have access to view all complaints. The information
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Claim for Standard Government Headstone or Marker for Installation in a Private or State Veterans' Cemetery, VA Form 40–1330.
b. Claim for Government Medallion for Installation in a Private Cemetery, VA Form 40–1330M.
a. The next of kin or other responsible parties of deceased Veterans complete VA Form 40–1330 to apply for Government provided headstones or markers for unmarked graves.
b. A family member complete VA Form 40–1330M to apply for a Government medallion to be affixed to privately purchased headstone or marker for a deceased Veteran buried in a private cemetery.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
This Notice informs the public that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will no longer request that certain veterans enrolled in the VA health care system annually submit income and asset information. VA uses such information to verify a veteran's continuing eligibility for certain health care benefits; however, VA is now able to get similar information through a means less burdensome on veterans. Moreover, annual, routine collection of this information has not significantly impacted veteran enrollment, and places an unwarranted burden on affected veterans. Therefore, VA will discontinue requesting that veterans submit an annual financial assessment following initial enrollment.
Kristin J. Cunningham, Director Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB6), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461–1599. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104–262, made major changes in the laws governing eligibility for VA health care benefits. This law added a new section 38 U.S.C. 1705, which established a patient enrollment system to manage the provision of health care services. This statute requires VA to place an enrolled veteran into a defined priority group. Veterans enrolled in the VA health care system are placed in priority groups based on criteria found in 38 U.S.C. 1705, 1710 and 38 CFR 17.36. Enrollment in three of these priority groups is based on the income of the veteran. Priority Group 5 includes, among others, veterans who are determined by VA to be unable to defray the expenses of necessary care. Priority Group 7 includes veterans with incomes below the geographic means test income thresholds and who agree to pay the applicable copayment. Priority Group 8 includes veterans with gross household incomes above the VA national income threshold and the geographically-adjusted income threshold for their resident location and who agree to pay copayments.
VA has established a means test program to determine when a veteran's income would meet the requirements for enrollment in one of the priority groups mentioned above. The means test developed by VA requires a veteran to submit a financial assessment (38 CFR 17.36(d)(3)(iv)) using the Application for Health Benefits, VA Form 10–10EZ. VA verifies that self-
VA requires a veteran whose assignment to a priority group is based on income to submit a financial assessment when initially enrolled and then requests resubmission of this information each year thereafter on the enrollment anniversary. As a reminder of this requirement, VA mails a Health Benefits Renewal (VA Form 10–10EZR) to the veteran 60 days before the anniversary date, and a second notification 30 days before the anniversary date, if the veteran has not yet submitted the requested information. If the veteran's financial assessment information is not updated prior to the anniversary date, VA asks the veteran to update the financial assessment when they arrive for their next health care appointment.
To accurately complete the financial assessment portion of the VA Form 10–10EZR, the veteran must maintain and have ready access to information on gross household income, assets, and expenses for the previous year. The average time required for a veteran to complete the financial assessment renewal form is 24 minutes. Of the approximately 2.1 million veterans required to submit annual financial assessments, only about ten percent have a change in income or assets sufficient to affect the veteran's priority group placement. For the approximately 90 percent of veterans who have no change in income or assets, the annual reporting requirement is an unnecessary burden.
VA intends to eliminate this burden by changing the financial reporting practices. Veterans will be requested to submit financial assessment information using a VA Form 10–10EZ only during the initial enrollment process. VA will continue to receive income information from IRS and SSA, which will then be compared to the information initially provided by the veteran. A veteran will be asked to provide further income and asset information or to verify the data provided by IRS or SSA only in those cases where VA identifies a change to the veteran's income that would result in a change to the veteran's priority group status. However, any veteran who has information that he or she believes will affect his or her enrollment status may submit that information at any time using VA Form 10–10EZR.
Because this change in policy requires revision of current VA forms and processes, including updating existing information technology, it will be implemented in two phases. VA anticipates that Phase I, affecting current enrollees, will be implemented by December 31, 2013. During Phase I, we will eliminate the need for current enrollees to submit the annual financial assessment. VA will use the income matching process from IRS and SSA to determine a veteran's income. Prior to implementation VA will send correspondence to affected veterans notifying them of this change. Phase II, which will include new enrollees, is targeted after Phase I is completed. During Phase II, VA will discontinue the requirement that new enrollees placed in Priority Group 5, 7, or 8 provide an annual update of financial assessment information. Again, we will compare the financial assessment initially provided by the new enrollee against the IRS and SSA data to determine income information and priority group placement for new enrollees.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on October 17, 2013, for publication.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must prescribe energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential furnace fans. EPCA requires DOE to determine whether such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE is proposing new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. The notice also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone number above to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that any person wishing to bring a laptop computer into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to section VII, “Public Participation,” near the end of this notice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Mr. Ron Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Title III, Part B
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is proposing new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. Table I.1 below presents the proposed standards, which represent the “estimated annual electrical energy consumption” normalized by the estimated total number of annual operating hours (1870) and the airflow in the maximum airflow-control setting to produce a fan energy rating (FER). These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date five years from the publication of the final rule.
Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of residential furnace fans, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period (PBP). In overview, the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2013 to 2048). Using a real discount rate of 7.8 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of residential furnace fans is $252.2 million in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 21.6 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $54.4 million. Total conversion costs incurred by industry prior to the compliance date are expected to reach $3.1 million.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy. The cumulative energy savings for residential furnace fan products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with new standards (2019–2048) amount to 4.58 quads.
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings for the proposed residential furnace fan standards in 2012$ ranges from $8.51 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $26.16 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for residential furnace fans purchased in 2019–2048, discounted to 2013.
In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits.
The value of the CO
Table I.3 summarizes the national economic benefits and costs expected to result from these proposed standards for residential furnace fans.
Although combining the values of operating savings and CO
The benefits and costs of these proposed standards, for products sold in 2019–2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2012$.) Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for at least some, if not most, product classes covered by this proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for residential furnace fans.
Title III, Part B
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required by EPCA to consider and establish energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans by December 31, 2013. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) DOE is also required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product prior to the adoption of an energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) DOE does not currently have a test procedure for furnace fans. Accordingly, to fulfill the statutory requirements, DOE is simultaneously conducting a test procedure rulemaking for residential furnace fans. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including residential furnace fans. As indicated above, any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including residential furnace fans, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any 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))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (
Additionally, under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), the statute specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of covered product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)). In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard level, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.
Currently, no Federal energy conservation standards apply to residential furnace fans.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D), DOE must consider and prescribe new energy conservation standards or energy use standards for electricity used for purposes of circulating air through duct work. DOE has interpreted this statutory language to allow regulation of the electricity use of any electrically-powered device applied to residential central heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems for the purpose of circulating air through duct work.
DOE initiated the current rulemaking by issuing an analytical Framework Document, “Rulemaking Framework for Furnace Fans” (June 1, 2010). DOE then published the Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Framework Document for furnace fans in the
As a concurrent effort to the residential furnace fan energy conservation standard rulemaking, DOE also initiated a test procedure rulemaking for residential furnace fans. On May 15, 2012, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the test procedure in the
To further develop the energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, DOE gathered additional information and performed a preliminary technical analysis. This process culminated in publication in the
The preliminary TSD provided an overview of the activities DOE undertook in developing potential energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, and discussed the comments DOE received in response to the Framework Document. It also described the analytical methodology that DOE used and each analysis DOE had performed up to that point. These analyses were as follows:
• A
• A
• An
• An
• A
• A
• A
• A
• A
• A
The nature and function of the analyses in this rulemaking, including the engineering analysis, energy-use characterization, markups to determine installed prices, LCC and PBP analyses, and national impact analysis, are summarized in the July 2012 notice. 77 FR 40530, 40532–33 (July 10, 2012).
The preliminary analysis public meeting took place on July 27, 2012. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. The numerous comments received since publication of the July 2012 notice, including those received at the preliminary analysis public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of the issues noted by interested parties.
The submitted comments include a joint comment from the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), Adjuvant Consulting, on behalf of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); a comment from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); a second joint comment from California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) including Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE); a comment from Earthjustice; a comment from ebm-papst Inc. (ebm-papst); a comment from Edison Electric Institute (EEI); and a comment from the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP). Manufacturers submitting written comments included: First Company, Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman), Ingersoll Rand, Lennox International, Inc. (Lennox), Morrison Products, Inc. (Morrison), Mortex Product, Inc. (Mortex), National Motor Corporation (NMC), and Rheem Manufacturing Company (Rheem). Comments made during the public meeting by those not already listed include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the motor manufacturer Regal Beloit, and Unico Incorporated. This NOPR summarizes and responds to the issues raised in these comments. A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In the SNOPR for the residential furnace fan test procedure published in the
In the April 2, 2013 test procedure SNOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the definitions, test setup and equipment, and procedures for measuring steady-state combustion efficiency provisions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 103–2007,
In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to define “fan energy rating” (FER) as the estimated annual electrical energy consumption of the furnace fan normalized by: (a) the estimated total number of annual fan operating hours (1,870);
The
As shown in Table III.2, for products with single-stage heating, the three proposed rated airflow-control settings are the default constant-circulation setting, the default heating setting, and the absolute maximum setting. 78 FR 19606, 19609 (April 2, 2013). For products with multi-stage heating or modulating heating, the proposed rated airflow-control settings are the default constant-circulation setting, the default low heating setting, and the absolute maximum setting. The absolute lowest default airflow-control setting is used to represent constant circulation if a default constant-circulation setting is not specified. DOE proposed to define “default airflow-control settings” as the airflow-control settings specified for installed use by the manufacturer in the product literature shipped with the product in which the furnace fan is integrated.
In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to weight the Watt measurements using designated annual operating hours for each function (
The specified operating hours for the heating mode for multi-stage heating or modulating heating products are divided by the heat capacity ratio (HCR) to account for variation in time spent in this mode associated with turndown of heating output. The HCR is the ratio of the reduced heat output capacity to maximum heat output capacity. The proposed FER equation is:
The public meeting for the energy conservation standards preliminary analysis occurred only two months after the public meeting for the test procedure NOPR. At the time of the preliminary analysis meeting, the comment period for the test procedure NOPR was still open. Consequently, many of the written comments and oral comments made during the preliminary analysis public meeting focused on test procedure issues and echoed comments in the test procedure rulemaking proceeding. While these test procedure issues are germane to the regulation of residential furnace fans more broadly, they are beyond the scope of the present energy conservation standards rulemaking. Accordingly, DOE addressed these test procedure-related comments, with detailed responses, in the April 2, 2013 test procedure SNOPR. Any additional comments made during the preliminary analysis relating to the test procedure that were not discussed in the test procedure SNOPR (
Although the title of 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) refers to “furnaces and boilers,” DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) was written using notably broader language than the other provisions within the
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For this rulemaking, DOE proposes to differentiate between product classes based on internal structure and application-specific design differences that impact furnace fan energy consumption. Details regarding how internal structure and application-specific design differences that impact furnace fan energy consumption are included in chapter 3 of the NOPR technical support document (TSD). DOE proposes the following product classes for this rulemaking.
Each product class title includes descriptors that indicate the application-specific design and internal structure of its included products. “Weatherized” and “non-weatherized” are descriptors that indicate whether the HVAC product is installed outdoors or indoors, respectively. Weatherized products also include an internal evaporator coil, while non-weatherized products are not shipped with an evaporator coil but may be designed to be paired with one. “Condensing” refers to the presence of a secondary, condensing heat exchanger in addition to the primary combustion heat exchanger in certain furnaces. The presence of an evaporator coil or secondary heat exchanger significantly impacts the internal structure of an HVAC product, and in turn, the energy performance of the furnace fan integrated in that HVAC product. “Manufactured home” products meet certain design requirements that allow them to be installed in manufactured homes (
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain efficiency level. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for residential furnace fans, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
When DOE proposes to adopt a new standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential furnace fans, using the design parameters for the most-efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with new standards (2019–2048). These savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year analysis period.
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from potential standards for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual basis in terms of the primary (source) energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy. To convert site energy to primary energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's)
DOE has begun to also estimate energy savings using full-fuel-cycle metrics. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the primary fuels used by covered products and equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1.
As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in
As discussed above, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) Industry net present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment, as discussed in section IV.N. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, which is specified separately in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the considered products in the first year of compliance with new standards.
To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. DOE's LCC analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The standards proposed in this notice will not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule.
In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE notes that the energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M.
The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from each TSL it considered in section IV.K of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L.
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent interested parties submit any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described above, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis generates values used to determine which of the considered standard levels meet the three-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1 of this notice. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification).
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to residential furnace fans. After a brief discussion of the spreadsheet tools and models used, separate subsections will address each component of DOE's analysis.
DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of this proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback periods of potential standards. The second provides shipments forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential standards. Finally, DOE assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). All three spreadsheet tools are available online at the rulemaking portion of DOE's Web site:
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment that would be likely to result from potential standards for residential furnace fans. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses.
DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this residential furnace fans rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the scope of this rulemaking; (2) product classes and manufacturers; (3) quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; (4) retail market trends; (5) regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) under examination. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
EPCA provides DOE with the authority to consider and prescribe new energy conservation standards for electricity used to circulate air through duct work. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) In the preliminary analysis, DOE defined a “furnace fan” as “any electrically-powered device used in residential, central heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems for the purpose of circulating air through duct
Interested parties disagreed with DOE's approach to set component-level regulations, which they warned would ignore system effects that could impact both fan and system energy consumption. CA IOUs suggested that “furnace fan” be defined as a unit consisting of a fan motor, its controls, an impeller, shroud, and cabinet that houses all of the heat exchange material for the furnace. According to CA IOUs, their suggested definition would reduce ambiguity and ensure that the components in HVAC products that affect furnace fan energy consumption are considered in this rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 1) Ingersoll Rand went further and suggested a system-level regulatory approach, where the entire duct and furnace system would be regulated, maintaining that such approach would produce a more useful metric to consumers when evaluating performance. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 42) Conversely, NEEP observed that by regulating fan energy use separately, the individual efficiency of the component is considered when it would otherwise be ignored by manufacturers. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 3) Rheem commented that some designs require higher air velocity to improve heat transfer but also require more electrical consumption to drive the blower at the higher velocity. (Rheem, No. 43 at p. 63) Rheem commented that turbulent flow is considerably more efficient for heat transfer than laminar flow, but more energy is required to move turbulent air. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 10) Similarly, Lennox and Morrison commented that in order to improve heating and cooling efficiency, often a second heating coil is added, but this also leads to higher electrical consumption by the furnace fan. (Lennox, No. 43 at p. 64; Morrison, No. 43 at p. 64) Ingersoll Rand argued that as the efficiency of the furnace fan motor increases, it dissipates less heat and a furnace consumes more gas to compensate and meet house heat load. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 66)
In response, DOE is required by EPCA to consider and prescribe new energy conservation standards or energy use standards for electricity used for purposes of circulating air through duct work. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) Pursuant to this statutory mandate, DOE plans to establish energy conservation standards for circulation fans used in residential central HVAC systems. DOE does not interpret its authority as including the duct work itself. DOE is aware that component-level regulations could have system-level impacts. Accordingly, DOE plans to conduct its analyses and set standards in such a way that meets the statutory requirements set forth by EPCA without ignoring system effects, which otherwise might compromise the thermal performance of the HVAC products that incorporate furnace fans. For example, the proposed test procedure outlined in the April 2, 2013 SNOPR specifies that the furnace fan be tested as factory-installed in the HVAC product, thereby enabling the rating metric to account for system effects on airflow delivery and, ultimately, energy performance. 78 FR 19606, 19612–13. In addition, the product class structure allows for differentiation of products with designs that achieve higher thermal efficiency but may have lower fan performance, such as condensing furnaces.
The scope of the preliminary analysis included furnace fans used in furnaces, modular blowers, and hydronic air handlers. Even though DOE has interpreted its authority as encompassing any electrically-powered device used in residential HVAC products to circulate air through duct work, the preliminary analysis scope excluded single package central air conditioners (CAC) and heat pumps (HP) and split-system CAC/HP blower-coil units. At the time of the preliminary analysis, DOE determined that it may consider these and other such products in a future rulemaking as data and information to develop credible analyses becomes available.
Efficiency advocates expressed concern at the exclusion of packaged and split-system CAC products because they believe current standards for these products do not maximize the technologically feasible and economically justified energy savings for the circulation fans integrated in these products. ASAP and Adjuvant stated that the metric used for CAC products does not accurately represent field conditions and requested that they be added to the scope. (ASAP, No. 43 at p. 17; Adjuvant, No. 43 at p. 39) Specifically, efficiency advocates found that the reference external static pressures (ESPs) used to determine the seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF), which already rate these products, did not reflect field-installed conditions. (ASAP, No. 43 at p. 38; Earthjustice, No. 49 at p. 1) In a joint comment from ACEEE, ASAP, NCLC, NEEA, and NRDC (hereafter referred to as ACEEE,
In contrast, many manufacturers believe that the scope of coverage presented in the preliminary analysis exceeds the statutory authority granted to DOE because the statutory language for this rulemaking is found in 42 U.S.C 6295(f) under the title “Standards for furnaces and boilers.” Consequently, manufacturers stated that DOE should not include any non-furnace products such as central air conditioners, heat pumps, or condensing unit-blower-coil combinations. Lennox, Mortex, and First Co. explicitly stated that no equipment other than residential furnaces and boilers should be included, as doing so is beyond DOE's statutory authority. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 4; Mortex, No. 59 at p. 1; First Co., No. 53 at p. 1) Mortex further stated that the electricity used to circulate air through duct work is already adequately accounted for in existing energy efficiency metrics, and that if DOE insists on proceeding on new energy conservation standards for furnace fans, DOE should limit it to residential warm air furnaces until there is a change made by Congress to include additional products. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 1) Goodman and Ingersoll Rand argued that packaged equipment and air handlers should not be included in the scope because the electrical energy consumed by these products to circulate air through duct work is already accounted for in SEER and HSPF. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 7; Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–1) Rheem and Morrison recommended that hydronic air handlers and modular blowers be excluded from the scope because these products have not been previously covered by an energy conservation standard and cannot be defined as furnaces. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 94;
Manufacturers also argued that the electricity used to circulate air through duct work for warm air furnaces with cooling capabilities is already covered by SEER. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 7; Mortex, No. 59 at p. 1) Additionally, for a residential warm air furnace, Mortex stated that E
As discussed in the furnace fan test procedure April 2, 2013 SNOPR, DOE notes that, although the title of this statutory section refers to “furnaces and boilers,” the applicable provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) was written using notably broader language than the other provisions within the same section. 78 FR 19606, 19611. Specifically, that statutory provision directs DOE to “consider and prescribe energy conservation standards or energy use standards for electricity used for purposes of circulating air through duct work.” Such language could be interpreted as encompassing electrically-powered devices used in any residential HVAC product to circulate air through duct work, not just furnaces, and DOE has received numerous comments on both sides of this issue. At the present time, however, DOE is only proposing energy conservation standards for those circulation fans that are used in residential furnaces and modular blowers (see discussion below). As a result, DOE is not addressing public comments that pertain to fans in other types of HVAC products. The following list describes the furnace fans which DOE proposes to address in this rulemaking.
DOE is using the term “modular blower” to refer to HVAC products powered by single-phase electricity that comprise an encased circulation blower that is intended to be the principal air circulation source for the living space of a residence. A modular blower is not contained within the same cabinet as a residential furnace, CAC, or heat pump. Instead, modular blowers are designed to be paired with separate residential HVAC products that provide heating and cooling, typically a separate CAC/HP coil-only unit. DOE finds that modular blowers and electric furnaces are very similar in design. In many cases, the only difference between a modular blower and electric furnace is the presence of an electric resistance heating kit. DOE is aware that some modular blower manufacturers offer electric resistance heating kits to be installed in their modular blower models so that the modular blowers can be converted to stand-alone electric furnaces. In addition, FER values for modular blowers can be easily calculated using the proposed test procedure. DOE proposes to address the furnace fans used in modular blowers in this rulemaking for these reasons.
After considering available information and public comments regarding fan operation in cooling mode, DOE maintains its proposal to account for the electrical consumption of furnace fans while performing all active mode functions (
DOE is aware that fan electrical consumption is accounted for in the SEER and HSPF metrics that DOE uses for CAC and heat pump products. However, DOE does not agree with manufacturers' comments suggesting that the electricity used to circulate air through duct work is already adequately accounted for in existing energy efficiency metrics of other covered products, particularly the SEER and HSPF metrics of CAC/HP. This is because SEER and HSPF are used to test cooling and heating performance of a CAC or heat pump product, whereas FER rates airflow performance of a furnace fan product. While furnace fan airflow performance contributes to cooling and heating performance, manufacturers can improve SEER and HSPF without improving fan performance. In short, SEER and HSPF-based standards do not directly regulate the efficiency of furnace fans, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D). DOE recognizes that the energy savings in cooling mode from higher-efficiency furnace fans used in some higher-efficiency CAC and heat pumps is already accounted for in the analysis of energy conservation standards for those products. As a result, DOE conducted its analysis in this current rulemaking in such a way as to avoid double-counting these benefits by excluding furnace fan electricity savings that were already included in DOE's analyses for CAC and heat pump products. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides a more detailed discussion of this issue.
DOE identified nine key product classes in the preliminary analysis, each of which was assigned its own candidate energy conservation standard and baseline FER. DOE identified twelve additional product classes that represent significantly fewer shipments and significantly less overall energy use. DOE grouped each non-key product class with a key product class to which it is closely related in application-specific design and internal structure (
Goodman and Rheem agreed that the selected key product classes are an accurate representation of the market, with Rheem commenting that it manufactures six of the nine proposed key product classes. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 4) NEEP found that the proposed key product class structure appropriately allows for differentiation of products with higher thermal efficiency. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 2) Goodman, Rheem, and Ingersoll Rand disagreed with DOE's approach to specify additional product classes within a key product class, stating that shipment data indicates that the additional product classes are too small to be covered. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–1; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 4)
Mortex expressed concern that the key product classes only represent furnace fan products with the most shipments and, if the energy conservation standards are set inappropriately high for these key product classes, the additional products classes (some of which serve unique applications) may also have trouble meeting any scaled standards levels based thereon. (Mortex, No. 43 at p. 53)
DOE agrees with Goodman, Rheem, and Ingersoll Rand that the additional product classes represent products with few and in many cases, no shipments. Individual discussions with manufacturers for the MIA confirm DOE's assumption. Additionally, review of the AHRI appliance directory reveals that only two of the additional product classes have active models listed: (1) Manufactured home weatherized gas furnace fans (MH–WG) and (2) manufactured home non-weatherized oil furnace fans (MH–NWO). The number of active basic models for MH–WG and MH–NWO are 4 and 16, respectively. For this reason, DOE proposes to eliminate the additional product classes except for MH–WG and MH–NWO. Due to the limited number of basic models for MH–WG and MH–NWO, DOE did not have data to directly analyze and establish standards for these additional product classes. As a result, DOE proposes to reserve space to establish standards for MH–WG and MH–NWO furnace fans in the future as sufficient data become available.
As discussed previously in section IV.A.1, DOE proposes to also exclude hydronic air handlers from consideration in this rulemaking, thereby further reducing the number of product classes addressed by this rulemaking to eight. Table IV.2 includes a list of the revised set of product classes for residential furnace fans.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered seven technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of furnace fans: (1) Fan housing and airflow path design modifications; (2) high-efficiency fan motors (in some cases paired with multi-stage or modulating heating controls); (3) inverter-driven permanent-split capacitor (PSC) fan motors; (4) backward-inclined impellers; (5) constant-airflow brushless permanent magnet (BPM) motor control relays; (6) toroidal transformers; and (7) switching mode power supplies. Since that time, DOE notes that its proposed scope of coverage no longer includes hydronic air handlers, the only furnace fan product class for which standby mode and off mode energy consumption is not accounted for in a separate DOE rulemaking. Consequently, the standby mode and off mode technology options (options 5 through 7 in the list above) are no longer applicable, because energy consumption in those modes is already fully accounted for in the DOE energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential furnaces and residential CAC and HP for the remaining proposed product classes. 76 FR 37408 (June 27, 2011); 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011). In addition, DOE found that multi-staging and modulating heating controls can also improve FER, so hence DOE evaluated multi-staging and modulating heating controls as a separate technology option for the NOPR. Thus, the resultant list of potential technology options identified for the NOPR include: (1) Fan housing and airflow path design modifications; (2) inverter-driven PSC fan motors; (3) high-efficiency fan motors; (4) multi-staging and modulating heating controls; and (5) backward-inclined impellers. Each identified technology option is discussed below and in more detail in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
The preliminary analysis identified fan housing and airflow path design modifications as potential technology options for improving the energy efficiency of furnace fans. Optimizing the shape of the inlet cone
ASAP expressed support for DOE's consideration of the aerodynamics of furnace fan cabinets in its initial analysis of technology options. (ASAP, No. 43 at p. 16) In particular, ASAP cited a 2003 GE study
DOE is aware of the studies cited by ASAP and ACEEE, as well as the proprietary housing design mentioned by Ingersoll Rand. For the NOPR, DOE decided to include fan housing design modifications as a technology to be evaluated further in the screening analysis because of these indications that each could improve fan efficiency.
Many interested parties requested that DOE keep airflow path design as a technology option. (Unico, No. 43 at p. 72; EPA, No. 43 at p. 76; ASAP, No. 43 at p. 77; CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 3; ACEEE,
While Morrison agreed that airflow path and fan housing design affect performance and efficiency, it argued that establishing a baseline design (over which to determine improvement) might be difficult because parameters used to select an individual manufacturer's design may have taken into account considerations outside the scope of the furnace fan rulemaking. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 75) Rheem suggested that AHRI should present airflow path and fan housing design data to the DOE in order to help establish the two technology options. (Rheem, No. 43 at p. 79)
Similar to the fan housing design modifications, DOE decided to include airflow path design as a technology option to be evaluated further in the screening analysis as a result of these claims of potential fan efficiency improvement. In response to the comment received from the EPA, DOE believes including airflow path design is appropriate because of its potential to impact fan efficiency. Airflow path design will impact the proposed rating metric, FER, because DOE is proposing to test the furnace fan as it is factory installed in the HVAC product. As discussed previously in section IV.A.1, DOE has conducted its NOPR analyses in such a way as to meet the statutory requirements set forth by EPCA without ignoring system effects. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides more technical detail regarding fan housing and airflow path design modifications and how these measures could reduce furnace fan energy consumption.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE identified inverter-driven PSC motors as a technology option. DOE is aware of a series of non-weatherized gas furnaces with inverter-driven PSC furnace fan motors that was once commercially available. DOE has determined that inverter controls provide efficiency improvement by offering additional intermediate airflow-control settings and a wider range of airflow-control settings (
Manufacturers were opposed to listing inverter-driven PSCs as a viable technology option. Goodman commented that there are alternate, more cost-effective solutions to reduce energy consumption for air-moving systems, such as airflow path design. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 2) Ingersoll Rand and Morrison commented that the small energy savings provided by inverter-driven PSCs are not worth the added cost and complexity when ECM (referred to herein by DOE as a “constant-airflow BPM motor”) technology is available at a comparable cost and greater efficiency. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–1; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 6) Morrison suggested that the motor industry was seeking lower-cost alternatives to ECM motors, such as fractional horsepower switched reluctance motors or inverter-driven PSCs, but that no low-cost alternative currently exists. (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 2) NMC, a motor manufacturer, went further, stating that inverter-driven PSC motors using wave chopper controls are not typically more efficient than multi-tap PSC motors and that they are not a practical alternative to brushless permanent magnet technology. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes manufacturers' concerns with the cost-effectiveness of inverter-driven PSC fan motors. However, DOE decided to include inverter-driven PSC motors as a technology option to be evaluated further in the screening analysis due to their potential to reduce furnace fan energy consumption. DOE evaluates in the engineering analysis the cost-effectiveness of all energy-saving technology options that are not screened out. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides a more detailed discussion of inverter-driven PSC furnace fan motors.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE identified four motor types that are typically used in furnace fan assemblies: (1) PSC motors; (2) PSC motors that have more than 3 airflow-control settings and sometimes improved materials (hereinafter referred to as “improved PSC” motors); (3) constant-torque BPM motors (often referred to as “X13 motors”); and (4) constant-airflow BPM motors (often referred to as “ECMs”).
• Functioning more efficiently at a given operating condition;
• Maintaining efficiency throughout the expected operating range; and
• Achieving a lower turndown ratio
Ingersoll Rand commented that a PSC motor will use less energy at higher static pressures, while an ECM increases energy use as static pressure rises. Ingersoll Rand stated that as a result, understanding the impact of switching to an ECM at higher static pressures may confuse the consumer. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 67)
DOE is aware that consumers may be confused when BPM motors (referred to as ECMs by Ingersoll Rand above) consume more energy than PSC motors at higher static pressures, because consumers expect BPM motors to consume less energy than PSC motors under the same operating conditions. In general, input power to the fan motor increases as static pressure increases to provide a given airflow (
Interested parties recognized the benefits provided by constant-torque and constant-airflow BPM motors. NMC agreed that variable-speed technology is useful in furnace fan applications, because the airflow settings can be adjusted and optimized for a range of static pressure levels. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 1) NEEP supported DOE's proposal for an efficiency level based on a constant-torque ECM as part of the furnace fan analysis, given that these motors are widely available and less expensive than “full blown” ECM motors. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 3) Morrison commented that ECM technology offers the best cost for performance value. (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 2)
Interested parties agreed that the BPM motor variations (
Overall, comments regarding high-efficiency motor turndown ratio validated DOE's expectation that lower turndowns are associated with improved PSCs, inverter-driven PSCs, and BPM motor variations. These motors consume significantly less energy over a typical residential furnace fan operating range. DOE disagrees with Lennox that including constant circulation as part of FER would “artificially” inflate the performance of BPM motors compared to PSC motors, because DOE concludes that there is non-trivial use of this mode by consumers. As part of the test procedure rulemaking, DOE estimates that on average, consumers operate furnace fans in constant-circulation mode 400 hours annually. This estimate is used to weight fan constant-circulation electrical energy consumption in FER. Excluding this mode from the rating metric would underestimate the potential efficiency improvements of technology options, such as BPM motors, that could reduce fan electrical consumption while performing this function. A detailed discussion of DOE's estimate for national average constant-circulation furnace fan operating hours can be found in the test procedure NOPR. 77 FR 28674, 28682 (May 15, 2012). DOE did not revise these estimates in the test procedure SNOPR published on April 2, 2013. 78 FR 19606.
In the preliminary analysis (77 FR 40530 (July 10, 2012)), DOE identified two-stage and modulating heating controls (hereinafter collectively referred to as “multi-stage” controls) as a method of reducing residential furnace fan energy consumption. Multi-stage furnaces typically operate at lower heat input rates and, in turn, a lower airflow-control setting for extended periods of time compared to single-stage furnaces to heat a residence.
ASAP, ACEEE, NCLC, NRDC, and NEEA encouraged DOE to consider X13-level motors applied with multi-stage furnace controls as a technology option. ACEEE
Based on comments from Rheem and other manufacturers, DOE recognizes that multi-stage controls can be paired with other motor types, not just constant-airflow BPM motors. DOE agrees with ACEEE
DOE determined in the preliminary analysis that using backward-inclined impellers could lead to possible residential furnace fan energy savings. Although limited commercial data regarding backward-inclined impeller performance were available, DOE cited research by General Electric that showed large improvements in efficiency were achievable under certain operating conditions.
Morrison disagreed with the DOE's findings, stating that literature indicates there are varying degrees of performance improvement when backward-inclined impellers are used in place of forward-curved impellers. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 132) Specifically, Morrison cited an LBNL study
Ebm-papst, a company that provides custom air-movement products, offered a diverging opinion from most manufacturers regarding the energy-saving potential of backward-inclined impellers. That company retrofitted
DOE recognizes that backward-inclined impellers may not be more efficient than forward-curved impellers under all operating conditions and that there may be considerable constraints to implementation. However, the GE prototype and ebm-papst prototype both demonstrate that significant energy consumption reduction is achievable at some points within the range of residential furnace fan operation. For this reason, DOE has included backward-inclined impellers as a technology option to be evaluated further in the screening analysis, where DOE investigates any other concerns regarding the use of a technology option, such as the practicability to manufacture or impacts on reliability, utility, and safety in the screening analysis.
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
1.
2.
3.
4.
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be screened out from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed below.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
DOE screened out fan housing and airflow path design improvements in the preliminary analysis. DOE had little quantitative data to correlate specific fan housing alterations with efficiency improvements. Additionally, DOE anticipated that any improvements to airflow path design that would result in fan efficiency improvement would require an increase in furnace fan cabinet size or negatively impact heat exchanger performance, thereby compromising the practicability to manufacture or reducing utility to consumers.
Interested parties stated many concerns associated with modifying airflow path designs to reduce residential furnace fan electrical energy consumption. Morrison provided an example illustrating the tradeoffs in thermal performance of selecting an airflow path that enhances fan performance. Specifically, Morrison stated that, “a 90%+ efficient furnace will have higher pressure drop through the furnace than a similarly sized 80%+ efficient furnace because of the added heat transfer surface area.” (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 5) Conversely, manufacturers noted that higher SEER requirements call for increased central air conditioner or heat pump indoor coil size, leaving reduced space for other HVAC system components. Having to decrease the size of the fan due to these additional regulations could also make the furnace fan less efficient. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 62) Mortex and Morrison also commented that the primary concern when selecting an airflow path design is usually safety or impact on heat transfer, not efficiency. (Mortex, No. 43 at p. 135; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 5) AHRI and Rheem outlined all of the possible housing design modifications that would affect airflow path design, including housing shape, distance between components, size of duct openings, and motor mounting. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 9) AHRI emphasized that some modifications could improve or decrease efficiency, but all would require an increase in product size and, thus, manufacturing costs. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 3) During manufacturer interviews, many manufacturers reiterated or echoed that airflow path design modifications would likely require increasing HVAC product size. Manufacturers explained that increasing HVAC products size would have adverse impacts on practicability to install and consumer utility, because the furnace fan market is predominantly a replacement market. Installing HVAC products that are larger in size compared to the products they are purchased to replace would likely present issues, mainly significant increases in installation costs or minimizing product availability to consumers.
DOE did not receive or find additional quantitative data that shows a measurable increase in fan efficiency as a result of a specific fan housing or airflow path design modification. Even after individual discussion with manufacturers, DOE was not able to identify a case where fan housing or airflow path design modifications could lead to potential fan energy savings without increasing the size of the HVAC product in which the furnace fan is used or compromising thermal performance or safety. In response to Morrison's comment, DOE assumes that the “added heat transfer surface area” in the 90%+ efficient furnace that Morrison refers to is the secondary heat exchanger typically used in condensing furnaces. DOE is aware of the impacts on thermal efficiency and furnace fan performance of the additional heat exchanger in condensing furnaces. As discussed in section III.B, DOE accounted for these impacts in its criteria for differentiating product classes. The 90%+ furnace (condensing) and 80%+ furnace (non-condensing) that Morrison refers to would not be in the same product class
Through a review of each technology, DOE found that all of the other identified technologies met all four screening criteria to be examined further in DOE's analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: (1) Inverter-driven PSC fan motors; (2) high-efficiency fan motors; (3) multi-stage heating controls; and (4) backward-inclined impellers. DOE understands that all of these technology options are technologically feasible, given that the evaluated technologies are being used (or have been used) in commercially-available products or working prototypes. These technologies all incorporate materials and components that are commercially available in today's supply markets for the residential furnace fans that are the subject of this NOPR. Therefore, DOE believes all of the efficiency levels evaluated in this notice are technologically feasible. For additional details, please see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE finds that all of the remaining technology options also meet the other screening criteria (
AHRI stated that there are a limited number of ECM motor suppliers to furnace fan manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2) Lennox commented that the technology is proprietary and dominated by a single motor manufacturer. Lennox added that industry competition is adversely affected as a result. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 6) AHRI and Lennox noted that furnace fan manufacturers already have difficulties securing an adequate supply, so mandating ECM use would impact product availability. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 8; AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2) AHRI and Mortex stated that no alternative ECM exists at the scale of Regal Beloit ECMs and that limiting PSC applicability would reduce product flexibility. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2; Mortex, No. 43 at p. 129) Both Goodman and Ingersoll Rand do not expect that a technology with better or equivalent performance to brushless permanent magnet motors will be available at a reasonable cost in the next decade. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–2)
Regal Beloit disagreed with residential furnace fan manufacturers, claiming that there is more than just a single motor manufacturer offering ECM technology. (Regal Beloit, No. 43 at p. 130) NMC concurred with Regal Beloit, stating that it too sells brushless permanent magnet motors in high volumes to furnace fan manufacturers. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 2) NMC supported DOE's assumption that after implementation of furnace fan efficiency standards, brushless permanent magnet motor technologies will become increasingly available over time. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 2) Ingersoll Rand confirmed that brushless DC motors are an ECM alternative available from several suppliers, although prices vary. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–2) Although Rheem commented that they have applied brushless DC motors produced by more than just a single vendor, their current designs and production processes have been developed to be specifically paired with Regal Beloit products. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 7) DOE discovered during interviews with manufacturers that there are multiple suppliers of BPM motors. DOE also found further evidence that some manufacturers purchase BPM motors from multiple suppliers. EEI stated that the expiration of Regal Beloit ECM patents around 2020 may increase the availability of this motor type while decreasing cost. (EEI, No. 43 at p. 127)
In the preliminary analysis, DOE requested comment as to whether manufacturers could alternatively develop BPM motor controls in-house when using high-efficiency motors from other, non-Regal Beloit, suppliers. Currently, Regal Beloit offers BPM motors packaged with controls. Manufacturers may buy BPM motors that are not pre-packaged with controls from a supplier other than Regal Beloit, and develop their own controls. DOE anticipated that if furnace fan manufacturers had the ability to develop controls independently of Regal Beloit, this might drive down costs as well as dependency on a single manufacturer.
Most furnace fan manufacturers claimed that development of in-house controls for BPM motors is not an option. For example, Rheem uses General Electric and Regal Beloit software tools to program motors and does not currently have the capability to design motor controls without this tool. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 6) Lennox and Morrison noted that having to design, build, and test motor controls would increase burden for large manufacturers and be prohibitively expensive to small manufacturers, neither of which have the expertise to develop these types of complex controls internally. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 2) Lennox was also fearful that ECM suppliers might find motor control development an attempt to develop a replacement product and cut ties with furnace fan manufacturers. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 7)
NMC confirmed that many U.S. motor suppliers bring in equipment from a fan manufacturer and develop unique ECM controls tailored to the manufacturer. (NMC, No. 43 at p. 128)
While DOE recognizes that Regal Beloit possesses a number of patents in the BPM motor space, other motor manufacturers (
Some fan manufacturers expressed concern that high-efficiency motor reliance on rare earth metals would impact supply. However, DOE is aware of high-efficiency motors that do not contain rare earth materials. DOE is also confident, after manufacturer discussions, that if BPM motors are adopted as a means to meet a future residential furnace fan energy conservation standard, manufacturers would have a number of cost- and performance-competitive suppliers from which to choose who have available, or could rapidly develop, control systems independently of the motor manufacturer.
According to Rheem, backward-inclined impellers must have larger diameter and operate at higher speed than forward-curve impellors in order to attain equivalent performance (
AHRI and Rheem were also concerned with the potential impacts that backward-inclined impellers could have on heat exchanger temperatures. AHRI and Rheem stated that the air distribution out of a blower housing with a forward-curved wheel is maximum at the outside edges of the wheel and decreases at the center of the wheel. The air distribution out of a blower housing with a backward-inclined wheel is maximum at the center of the wheel and tapers off at the outside edges. The modified air distribution out of the blower housing would require assessment of heat exchanger temperatures for reliability and safety, as temperature limits operation. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 8)
Some commenters also argued that backward-inclined impellers may affect furnace fan utility, because the noise produced by this impeller type may limit product application. Utilities have claimed that a backward-inclined impeller, in combination with increased fan motor speeds to achieve higher efficiency, leads to amplified noise levels. (EEI, No. 60 at p. 3; SCE, No. 43 at p. 59) However, during its testing of HVAC products retrofitted with a backward-inclined impeller, ebm-papst expressed a contrary view, observing that noise levels produced by the backward-inclined impeller were not significantly different from forward-curved impellers. (ebm-papst Inc., No. 52 at p. 1)
DOE finds that there are multiple approaches to implementing backward-inclined impellers to reduce furnace fan energy consumption. DOE recognizes that one approach is to use a backward-inclined impeller that is larger than a standard forward-curved impeller, which may lead to larger HVAC products. Another approach is to pair the backward-inclined impeller with a motor that operates at increased RPM. Ebm-papst tests show a significant potential to reduce fan electrical energy consumption for a backward-inclined impeller assembly that uses existing motor technology at higher RPMs and is implemented in existing HVAC products (
In the engineering analysis (corresponding to chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD), DOE establishes the relationship between the manufacturer selling price (MSP) and improved residential furnace fan efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE typically structures the engineering analysis using one of three approaches: (1) Design option; (2) efficiency level; or (3) reverse engineering (or cost-assessment). The design-option approach involves adding the estimated cost and efficiency of various efficiency-improving design changes to the baseline to model different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses estimates of cost and efficiency at discrete levels of efficiency from publicly-available information, and information gathered in manufacturer interviews that is supplemented and verified through technology reviews. The reverse engineering approach involves testing products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials derived from reverse engineering representative products. The efficiency values range from that of a least-efficient furnace fan sold today (
In this rulemaking, DOE used an efficiency-level approach in conjunction with a design-option approach to identify incremental improvements in efficiency for each product class. An efficiency-level approach enabled DOE to identify incremental improvements in efficiency for efficiency-improving technologies that furnace fan manufacturers already incorporate in commercially-available models. A design-option approach enabled DOE to model incremental improvements in efficiency for technologies that are not commercially available in residential furnace fan applications. In combination with these approaches, DOE used a cost-assessment approach to determine the manufacturing production cost (MPC) at each efficiency level identified for analysis. This methodology estimates the incremental cost of increasing product efficiency. When analyzing the cost of each efficiency level, the MPC is not for the entire HVAC product, because furnace fans are a component of the HVAC product in which they are integrated. The MPC includes costs only for the components of the HVAC product that impact FER.
During the preliminary analysis, DOE selected baseline units typical of the least-efficient furnace fans used in commercially-available, residential HVAC models that have a large number of annual shipments. This sets the starting point for analyzing potential technologies that provide energy efficiency improvements. Additional details on the selection of baseline units may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE compared the FER at higher energy efficiency levels to the FER of the baseline unit and compared baseline MPCs to the MPCs at higher efficiency levels.
DOE reviewed FER values that it calculated using test data and
Manufacturers asserted that the baseline FER values presented in the preliminary analysis were not representative of the furnace fans in the least-efficient residential HVAC models offered for sale today. Specifically, manufacturers stated that non-weatherized, non-condensing gas furnaces should be assigned a baseline FER of 451 instead of 380 and that non-weatherized, condensing gas furnaces should have an FER of 494 rather than 393. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 6; Goodman, No. 50 at p. 5) Rheem also doubted that the difference in efficiency between non-condensing and condensing gas furnaces was only 13 points, a FER of 380 versus 393, as presented in the DOE's preliminary analysis. (Rheem, No. 43 at p. 96) Mortex calculated that their manufactured home, non-weatherized, non-condensing gas furnace had an FER of 420, not 295 as suggested by the DOE. Mortex also stated that published data used to calculate FER values were generated using ASHRAE Standard 103, not AMCA Standard 210, and that calculating FER based on published data may not be the best approach. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 3; Mortex, No. 43 at p. 25) In contrast, Ingersoll Rand stated that the baseline FER presented in the preliminary analysis was consistent with the figures presented in AHRI Standard 210/240. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–7) Unico emphasized that the DOE should consider the broad range of designs fitting the “baseline” definition, lest the selected FER only be achievable by one manufacturer's design. (Unico, No. 43 at p. 79) Mortex disagreed with the DOE's key product approach, arguing that the selected product classes will have huge variation in efficiency (
Some manufacturers also requested that DOE alter FER to better reflect unit capacity. Goodman suggested that DOE should consider using only one metric for all furnace fan capacities falling within the residential range (< 130 kBtuh) after making adjustments to the metric to include higher capacity units. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 2) Alternatively, Mortex recommended that DOE should set maximum FER values for sub-product classes based on cooling capacity and cabinet size. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 3) Similarly, AHRI stated that residential furnace fans having a 5-ton capacity also have higher FERs and recommended that DOE adjust baseline FER values to include the largest-capacity fan within a product class. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2) Rheem calculated FER for 19 models of gas-fired furnaces that used the same blower housing design, and it found that FER was generally not dependent on capacity. A graphic summary of Rheem's results are available in the written comment that Rheem submitted.
DOE evaluated the feedback it received and used the data provided by interested parties to generate new FER values and to revise its baseline, intermediate efficiency levels, and max-tech FER estimates. DOE's revisions included FER results for furnace fan models that span the capacity range of residential products. After reviewing all of the available FER values based on new data, DOE concluded that FER can best be represented as a linear function of airflow capacity (
Table IV.5 shows the revised FER baseline efficiency levels estimates that DOE used for the NOPR.
For the preliminary analysis, DOE determined average FER reductions for each efficiency level for a subset of key product classes and applied these reductions to all product classes. DOE found from manufacturer feedback and its review of publically-available product literature that manufacturers use similar furnace fan components and follow a similar technology path to improving efficiency across all product classes. DOE does not expect the percent reduction in FER associated with each design option, whether commercially available or prototype, to differ across product classes as a result. Table IV.6 includes DOE's preliminary analysis estimates for the percent reduction in FER from baseline for each efficiency level.
Interested parties questioned DOE's estimates for the FER reduction for high-efficiency motors. NMC commented that the company offers a special high-efficiency PSC motor line called PEP® that can achieve 10 points of efficiency improvement over standard PSC motors rather than 1.6-percent improvement shown in the preliminary analysis. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 1) Other interested parties provided similar estimates for improved PSC motors during manufacturer interviews. Unico noted that the high-efficiency BPM motor technology options in the Engineering Analysis (constant-torque or constant-air-flow BPM) do not improve fan efficiency as much as DOE's percent reduction in FER estimates suggest. (Unico, No. 43 at p. 109) Lennox suggested that a more accurate estimate of reduction in FER resulting from PSC to X13 motor conversions would be 30 percent as opposed to the 45 percent presented in the preliminary analysis. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 2) Goodman provided a reference to a report from Advanced Energy of North Carolina
DOE reviewed its estimates of percent reduction in FER from baseline for each efficiency level based on interested party feedback. In addition to the comments presented above, interested parties also provided FER values for higher-efficiency products in manufacturer interviews. DOE used these data to revise its percent reduction estimates. Table IV.7 shows DOE's revised estimates for the percent reduction in FER for each efficiency level that DOE used in the NOPR analyses. For a given product class, DOE applied the percent reductions below to both the slope and y-intercept of the baseline FER equation to generate FER equations to represent each efficiency level above baseline.
DOE believes that these revised estimates are consistent with the comments received from interested parties. Note that EL 4 in the table above is a newly proposed efficiency level. As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE analyzed multi-staging as a separate technology option. For the NOPR, DOE also has evaluated a separate efficiency level representing applying multi-staging to a furnace fans with a constant-torque BPM motor. DOE recognizes that the percent reduction in FER for inverter-driven PSC increased considerably. However, since the baseline FER values increased for the NOPR, DOE believes that the percent reductions cannot directly be compared to those proposed in the preliminary analysis. DOE notes that the cited reductions may not appear to be fully consistent with stakeholder comments in part because they are FER reductions rather than reductions in full-load electrical efficiency. DOE expects that FER reductions may be significantly higher than full-load input power reductions, especially for efficiency levels based on use of BPM motors, because FER includes electrical energy consumption at reduced operating modes, for which these motors achieve much greater power reduction than PSC designs.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated the manufacturer production cost associated with each efficiency level to characterize the cost-efficiency relationship of improving furnace fan performance. The MPC estimates are not for the entire HVAC product because furnace fans are a component of the HVAC product in which they are integrated. The MPC estimates includes costs only for the components of the HVAC product that impact FER, which DOE considered to be the:
• Fan motor and integrated controls;
• Primary control board (PCB);
• Multi-staging components;
• Impeller;
• Fan housing; and
• Components used to direct or guide airflow.
DOE separated the proposed product classes into high-volume and low-volume product classes and generated high-volume and low-volume MPC estimates to account for the increased purchasing power of high-volume manufacturers.
Morrison stated that DOE's assumption that large manufacturers have the same purchasing power across product types, even when those products are low volume, may or may not be true, because low-volume products may run through different processes. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 118) Rheem stated that, in some cases, it uses the same blower system in low-volume products that it uses in high-volume products. (Rheem, No. 43 at p. 118) Unico commented that it uses different manufacturing processes than those presented in DOE's analysis and recommended that a different metric should be used to evaluate technologies that differ by process. (Unico, No. 43 at p. 122) Mortex stated that the motor costs for smaller manufacturers can be 15–20 percent greater than for large manufacturers because they do not, as stated by NEMA, benefit from economies of scale. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 43 at p. 113)
DOE recognizes that high-volume manufacturers may use different processes to manufacture low-volume products than to manufacture high-volume products. However, DOE finds that 94 percent of the MPC for furnace fans is attributed to materials (including purchased parts like fan motors), which are not impacted by process differences. DOE's estimates also already account for process differences between manufacturers for high-volume and low-volume products. The products that DOE evaluated to support calculation of MPC included furnace fans from various manufacturers, including both high-volume and low-volume models. Observed process differences are reflected in the bills of materials for those products. DOE agrees with Mortex that low-volume manufacturers experience higher costs for materials, such as motors. DOE believes that its approach to distinguish between high-volume and low-volume product classes accounts for the expected difference in MPC between high-volume and low-volume product classes.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated that the MPC of inverter control for a PSC motor is $10–$12, depending on production volume. Ingersoll Rand stated that an inverter cannot be added to a PSC for only $10–$12. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–7) NMC also questioned the validity of the inverter controller cost estimate, stating that the cost of an inverter driven controller is significantly higher than $12, unless DOE is erroneously equating inverters to wave chopper technology, which is far less efficient. (NMC, No. 60 at p. 1)
DOE's preliminary analysis estimate for the MPC of an inverter-driven PSC was indeed based on a wave chopper drive. DOE finds that more sophisticated and costly inverters are required to achieve the efficiencies reflected in DOE's analysis. Consequently, DOE has adjusted its cost estimate for PSC inverter technology. DOE gathered more information about the cost of inverters that are suited for improving furnace fan efficiency. In addition to receiving cost estimates during manufacturer interviews, DOE also reviewed its cost estimates for inverter drives used in other residential applications, such as clothes washers. DOE finds that $30 for high-volume
Manufacturers stated that DOE underestimated the incremental MPC to implement high-efficiency motors in HVAC products, other than oil furnaces. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 10) Most manufacturers stated that the cost increase to switch from PSCs to more-efficient motor technologies was at least twice that of the DOE's estimate. (Lennox, No. 43 at p. 23, 113 and No. 47 at p. 1; Mortex, No. 43 at p. 25; Rheem, No. 43 at p. 112; Goodman, No. 50 at p. 3) AHRI and Morrison claimed incremental costs associated with an X13 motor should be $60, instead of the $22.73 reported by DOE and in the case of ECMs, $133 instead of the $91.95 reported by DOE. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 6) Nidec, a motor manufacturer, commented that DOE should directly contact motor suppliers to confirm motor prices. (NMC, No. 43 at p. 112) Regal Beloit requested DOE review its assumption on motor horsepower range to explain why Rheem and other manufacturers claim their motors cost twice what is shown in DOE's preliminary analysis. (Regal Beloit, No. 52 at p. 242) DOE received additional feedback regarding its estimated motor prices during NOPR-phase manufacturer interviews.
Based upon the input received from interested parties, DOE adjusted its motor cost estimates. In general, DOE increased its estimates by approximately 10 to 15 percent, which is consistent with the feedback DOE received. Details regarding DOE's revised motor MPC estimates are provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated that the MPC of the primary control board (PCB) increases with each conversion to a more-efficient motor type (
DOE agrees with interested parties that the MPC of the PCB needed for a constant-airflow BPM motor is higher than for the PCB paired with a PSC motor. DOE maintained this assumption for the NOPR. DOE estimates that the MPC of a PCB paired with a constant-airflow BPM motor is roughly twice as much as for a PCB paired with a constant-torque BPM motor or PSC. DOE also agrees with the interested parties that stated that the MPC for a PCB paired with a constant-torque BPM motor is equivalent to that of a PCB needed for a PSC motor. DOE revised its analysis to reflect this assumption in the NOPR as a result.
Interested parties commented that DOE's preliminary analysis estimate for the incremental MPC associated with implementing a backward-inclined impeller, in combination with a premium constant-airflow BPM motor and multi-staging, is too low. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at p. 2) Morrison and AHRI commented that tighter tolerances and increased impeller diameter lead to increased material costs, as well as increased costs associated with motor mount structure and reverse forming fabrication processes. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 3; Morrison, No. 43 at p. 120) Rheem and Morrison stated that the dimensional clearance for a backward-inclined impeller would be 0.04–0.05 inches instead of 0.24–0.5 for a forward-curved impeller. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 8; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 3) This increase in product size and tolerance could lead to increased production costs. Ingersoll Rand, Morrison, and Rheem all cited increased material, assembly controls, reverse forming processes, and the strengthening of motor mounting systems (necessary at increased motor speeds) as potential costs associated with backward-inclined impellers. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at pp. A–3; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 8)
DOE reviewed its manufacturer production cost estimates for the backward-inclined impeller technology option based on interested party comments. During manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers reiterated or echoed that DOE's estimated MPC for backward-inclined impellers is too low, but they did not provide quantification of the total MPC of backward-inclined impellers or the incremental MPC associated with the changes needed to implement them. Other manufacturers did quantify the MPC of backward-inclined impeller solutions and their estimates were consistent with DOE's preliminary analysis estimate. Consequently, DOE did not modify its preliminary analysis estimated MPC for backward-inclined impellers.
DOE uses manufacturer-to-consumer markups to convert the manufacturer selling price estimates from the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. Before developing markups, DOE defines key market participants and identifies distribution channels. Generally, the furnace distribution chain (which is relevant to the residential furnace fan distribution chain) includes distributors, dealers, general contractors, mechanical contractors, installers, and builders. For the markups analysis, DOE combined mechanical contractors, dealers, and installers in a single category labeled “mechanical contractors,” because these terms are used interchangeably by the industry. Because builders serve the same function in the HVAC market as general contractors, DOE included builders in the “general contractors” category.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE used the same distribution channels for furnace fans as it used for furnaces in the recent energy conservation standards rulemaking for those products. 76 FR 37408, 37464 (June 27, 2011). DOE believes that this is an appropriate approach, because the vast
In the preliminary analysis, DOE requested comment on whether the market for replacement fans is large enough to merit a separate distribution channel, and, if so, what would be an appropriate assumption for its market share. Goodman expressed their belief that there is no market for replacing and/or upgrading only the furnace fan component of the furnace. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 3) Goodman and AHRI commented that they are opposed to field replacements and retrofits of motors and blowers because such practices could have product safety implications. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 48 at p. 4) In contrast, Nidec recommended that DOE should consider a distribution channel for replacing furnace fans in already installed equipment. (Nidec, No. 60 at pp. 2–3)
DOE has tentatively concluded that there is insufficient evidence of a replacement market for furnace fans.
DOE develops baseline and incremental markups to transform the manufacturer selling price into a consumer product price. DOE uses the baseline markups, which cover all of a distributor's or contractor's costs, to determine the sales price of baseline models. Incremental markups are separate coefficients that DOE applies to reflect the incremental cost of higher-efficiency models.
AHRI and Morrison voiced concerns with DOE's approach to incremental markups. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 58, at p. 7) These commenters stated that while the concept of profits constrained to the long-run cost of capital is a basic tenet of microeconomics, it has not been validated empirically and that there are enough exceptions and alternative concepts to question the use of that concept in a normative manner. AHRI also stated that DOE's basic theoretical framework requires that the relevant industry must be highly competitive, and AHRI believes that there are reasons to question this assumption in the context of residential furnace fans. Goodman concurred with the concerns noted by AHRI in regards to the markups analysis. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 5)
DOE acknowledges that detailed information on actual distributor and contractor practices would be helpful in evaluating their markups on furnaces. However, DOE finds it implausible that profit per unit would increase in the medium and long run if the cost of goods sold increases due to efficiency standards. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, DOE continues to assume that markups would decline slightly, leaving profit unchanged, and, thus, it uses lower markups on incremental costs of higher-efficiency products. Regarding the competitiveness of the HVAC distribution industry and the HVAC contractor industry, DOE does not have any empirical measures of competitiveness, but its impression, based on experience with these industries, is that there is sufficient competition to validate DOE's assumptions with respect to the difficulty of distributors and contractors increasing profits as a result of standards.
AHRI and Morrison disagreed with DOE's prediction that margins should be going up over time as equipment prices decrease. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 58, at p. 7) DOE did not project a decrease in furnace fan prices in the preliminary analysis, and the markups are assumed to remain the same over time.
Lennox believes that DOE's claim that incremental costs will be discounted on markups through the distribution chain by approximately 50 percent understates the amount of increased costs that manufacturers will seek to pass through to consumers. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 1) DOE does not apply a separate markup on the incremental manufacturer selling price. DOE assumes that manufacturers will be able to pass on the full incremental costs of higher-efficiency furnace fans.
Morrison stated that the markups analysis does not accurately calculate the costs for installers/contractors. Morrison noted that with increase in efficiency standards, there will be added labor and an associated cost to assure the buyer of the efficiency gains; the added labor of installation and commissioning is not included in the markups analysis, and, thus, the final markup is too small. (Morrison, No. 58, at p. 6) In response, the labor for installation and commissioning, including specific costs for higher-efficiency furnace fans, is included in the LCC and PBP analysis, as DOE assumes that this cost is not part of the consumer cost of the furnace itself.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of residential furnace fans in representative U.S. homes and to assess the energy savings potential of increased furnace fan efficiency. In general, DOE estimated the annual energy consumption of furnace fans at specified energy efficiency levels across a range of climate zones. The annual energy consumption includes the electricity use by the fan, as well as the change in natural gas, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), electricity, or oil use for heat production as result of the change in the amount of useful heat provided to the conditioned space as a result of the furnace fan. The annual energy consumption of furnace fans is used in subsequent analyses, including the LCC and PBP analysis and the national impact analysis.
DOE used the existing DOE test procedures for furnaces and air conditioners to estimate heating and cooling mode operating hours for the furnace fan. The power consumption of the furnace fan is determined using the individual sample housing unit operating conditions (the pressure and airflow) at which a particular furnace fan will operate when performing heating, cooling, and constant-circulation functions. The methodology and the data are fully described in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE used the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)
For the NOPR, DOE used RECS 2009
The power consumption (and overall efficiency) of a furnace fan depends on the speed at which the motor operates, the external static pressure difference across the fan, and the airflow through the fan. To calculate furnace fan electricity consumption, DOE determined the operating conditions (the pressure and airflow) at which a particular furnace fan will operate in each RECS housing unit when performing heating, cooling, and constant-circulation functions.
DOE gathered field data from available studies and research reports to determine an appropriate distribution of external static pressure (ESP) values. DOE compiled over 1,300 field ESP measurements from several studies that included furnace fans in single-family and manufactured homes in different regions of the country. The average ESP value in the cooling operating mode from these studies results in an average 0.65 in. wc for single-family households and 0.30 in. wc for manufactured homes.
DOE determined furnace fan operating hours in heating mode by calculating the furnace burner operating hours and adjusting them for delay times between burner and fan operation. Burner operating hours are a function of annual house heating load, furnace efficiency, and furnace input capacity.
EEI stated that DOE should take into consideration the impact of more-stringent building energy codes when estimating energy use baselines and projected energy savings. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 4) In response, DOE's analysis accounts for the likelihood that, compared to recently-built homes in the RECS sample, new homes in the year of compliance will have both a lower heating load per square foot and more square footage using the building shell efficiency index from
In the preliminary analysis, to estimate use of constant circulation in the sample homes, DOE evaluated the available studies, which include a 2010 survey in Minnesota
Several parties stated that DOE overestimated the use of constant-circulation mode, thereby overcounting the energy savings from higher-efficiency furnace fans. AHRI commented that continuous circulation is used significantly less than estimated in DOE's technical support document. In particular, AHRI pointed out that DOE's estimate of constant-circulation hours is based on surveys taken in only two States—Wisconsin and Minnesota—where there is high occurrence of indoor air quality issues that make use of the continuous fan feature more likely. To overcome this perceived deficiency, AHRI recommended a study of constant-circulation hours in areas of the country that do not have high occurrences of indoor air quality issues, leading to an allocation that is more representative of behavior in the U.S. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 4) Ingersoll Rand also stated that Wisconsin is not a good representation of the full national population, noting that DOE partially acknowledges this by assuming that the North is different from the South in terms of the use of constant circulation. (Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions, No. 57, at p. 8) Goodman concurred that the values proposed for constant-circulation hours are unrealistically high. Based on Goodman's experience, the commenter stated that a more typical value for the percentage of U.S. households that use the fan in constant-circulation mode would likely be in the low single digits. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 3) Morrison also stated that allocation of a large percentage of furnace fan time in the circulatory mode (21 percent of total time) is excessive. (Morrison, No. 58, at p. 7)
In contrast, CA IOUs stated that constant-circulation mode on the air handler is a primary means for mechanical ventilation of homes. CA IOUs argued that as States increasingly adopt building codes that call for more airtight building envelopes, the need for mechanical ventilation increases as natural ventilation decreases. Based upon this reasoning, CA IOUs stated that 400 hours per year in constant-circulation mode (approximately the average that DOE estimated for non-weatherized gas furnace fans) would be a conservative estimate. (CA IOU's, No. 56, at p. 3) NEEA stated that based on recent trends in ventilation and in the sales of filtration systems, there is a substantial increase in the use of constant circulation, especially in new home construction. (Transcript, No. 43 at p. 193)
DOE acknowledges that it would be desirable to have additional data on the use of constant circulation in other parts of the country, but DOE was not able to conduct a study as suggested by AHRI for the NOPR analysis, nor did any commenter provide such data. DOE concurs with the CA IOUs that the use of constant circulation may increase in new homes. For the NOPR, DOE used the same assumptions for use of constant circulation as it did in the preliminary analysis, which are also used in the proposed DOE test procedure for furnace fans. 77 FR 28674 (May 15, 2012). The shares of homes using the various constant-circulation modes are presented in Table IV.8. However, DOE also performed a sensitivity analysis to estimate the effect on the LCC results if it assumed half as much use of constant circulation. These results are discussed in section V.B.1 of this notice.
Commenting on the preliminary analysis, EEI stated that DOE should balance fan energy savings with the potential for additional fuel use of the HVAC product. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 3) With improved fan efficiency, there may be less heat from the motor, which means that the heating system needs to operate more and the cooling system needs to operate less. In response, DOE did account for the effect of improved furnace fan efficiency on the heating and cooling load of the sample homes. Goodman noted that DOE's assumptions are technically correct with regard to the effect on heating or cooling requirements from the change in fan energy consumption, and the adjustments appear to be appropriate. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 4)
In the preliminary analysis, DOE recognized that the energy savings in cooling mode from higher-efficiency furnace fans used in some higher-efficiency CAC and heat pumps was already accounted for in the analysis related to the energy conservation standards for those products. To avoid double-counting, the analysis for furnace fans does not include furnace fan electricity savings that were counted in DOE's analysis for CAC and heat pump products.
AHRI and Morrison commented that the LCC analysis includes furnace fan operating hours and furnace fan power operation in the cooling mode in the total energy consumption calculation. AHRI and Morrison noted that regulated metrics such as SEER and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) already address fan energy consumption in air conditioners and heat pumps respectively. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 6; Morrison, No. 58, at p. 8) Morrison commented that including this energy savings for this standard would result in the savings being counted under two regulatory standards. Mortex commented that: (1) The electricity used to circulate air in the summer is already being accounted for as part of the SEER metric for central air conditioners and heat pumps; (2) in the winter, the E
The standards for CAC and heat pump products that will be effective in 2015 do not require a furnace with BPM motor-driven fan. However, DOE's rulemaking analysis for CAC and heat pump products included savings from those households purchasing a CAC or heat pump at SEER 15 or above, that would need to have an BPM motor-driven fan in their furnace to achieve that efficiency level. The base-case efficiency distribution of fans used in the current analysis includes the presence of those BMP motor-driven fans in homes with the higher-efficiency CAC or heat pumps. Because the energy savings from the considered fan efficiency levels are measured relative to the base-case efficiencies, any savings reported here for furnace fans are over and above those counted in the CAC and heat pump rulemaking.
Recognizing the possibility of consumers using higher-efficiency furnace fans more than baseline furnace fans, DOE included a rebound effect in its preliminary analysis. DOE used a 2009 program evaluation report from Wisconsin
Commenters presented differing views on the likelihood of a rebound effect for furnace fans. Rheem believes that the Wisconsin study is reasonable in its estimate of the fraction of households that may switch to continuous circulation use under a standard requiring ECM furnace fans. (Rheem, No. 54, at p. 13) Goodman does not believe there has been a significant shift in terms of increased usage of continuous fan with customers that have an ECM product versus an X13 product versus a PSC product. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 4) Ingersoll Rand commented that if there were any comfort basis for the use of continuous fan mode, more use might lead to a lower heating set-point and a higher cooling set-point, offsetting the added energy consumption for continuous fan. Ingersoll Rand commented that the rebound effect, if it exists, is uncertain in direction and magnitude and should be deleted from the analysis. (Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions, No. 57, at p. 8)
DOE acknowledges that the magnitude of a rebound effect for furnace fans across the country is uncertain. However, because there is some evidence for the existence of a rebound effect, DOE prefers to include such an effect rather than risk overstating the energy savings from higher-efficiency furnace fans. The specific assumptions are described in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD.
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE considers the economic impact of potential standards on consumers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE
•
•
DOE analyzed the net effect of potential residential furnace fan standards on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP for each efficiency level for each sample household. DOE performed the LCC and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program used to conduct stochastic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions) to account for uncertainty and variability among the input variables (
The installed cost at each efficiency level is based on the MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation cost.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE found that the historic real (
For the NOPR, DOE evaluated the historic real PPI of fractional horsepower electric motors instead of integral horsepower electric motors. DOE found that this index has been decreasing except for the last few years, when it started to increase. Given the uncertainty about whether the recent trend will continue or instead revert to the historical mean, for the NOPR, DOE elected to continue using constant prices at the most recent level as the default price assumption to project future prices of furnace fans. Appendix 10–C of the NOPR TSD describes the historic PPI data.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that a fraction of ECM furnace fan installations will require up to an hour of extra labor. Goodman commented that based on its experience, at least two hours of extra labor will be required in the majority of ECM furnace fan installations. It notes this is particularly true in light of the fact that many regulatory authorities, such as California Energy Commission via Title 24, are requiring more verification of proper airflow, which may be more challenging with advanced technologies such as ECM motors. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 5)
For the NOPR, DOE modified its approach and assumed that up to two hours of extra labor will be required for all ECM furnace fan installations. Details of the updated approach are available in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE used the same maintenance costs for furnace fans at different efficiency levels. To estimate rates of fan motor failure, DOE developed a distribution of fan motor lifetime (expressed in operating hours) by motor size using data developed for DOE's small electric motors final rule (75 FR 10874 (March 9, 2010)).
Nidec estimated that three percent of the motors operating the furnace fan fail each year. (Nidec, No. 60 at pp. 2–3) DOE agrees that the fan motor may fail and included motor replacement in the LCC and PBP analysis.
AHRI, Goodman, and Rheem commented that higher-efficiency motors have increased failure rates. AHRI and Rheem noted that the failure rate for a high-efficiency motor is typically higher than the failure rate of a PSC motor, because the electronics added to a high-efficiency motor introduce new failure modes associated with the life of electronic controls in damp, very cold, and very hot conditions. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 54, at p. 14) Goodman commented that generally, more complex motors contain more components that can potentially break, which is true of the additional controls in X13 and ECM technologies. The commenter recommended that DOE estimate that service requirements will be 20 to 50 percent greater for higher-efficiency motors and related controls, and that the cost of such service will be more for X13 and ECM than for PSC motors. Goodman also suggested that DOE should use a reduced lifetime (by five to ten percent) for X13 and ECM furnace fan motors, as PSC motor technologies are very mature and X13 and ECM are relatively young. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 6)
DOE agrees that the electronics of higher-efficiency motors are likely to have increased failure rates. For the NOPR, DOE included repair to electronics for PSC motors with controls, constant-torque BPM motors, and especially constant-airflow BPM motors. DOE added an extra cost for the cases that require control updates for these efficiency levels. DOE also applied an additional labor hour to account for cases when it is necessary to replace the motors for the constant-torque BPM and constant-airflow BPM efficiency levels. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details.
DOE did not have a firm basis for quantifying the degree to which constant-torque BPM motors and constant-airflow BPM motors have a shorter lifetime than PSC motors. Although DOE used the same motor lifetime for each fan efficiency level in terms of total operating hours, the lifetime in terms of years is lower for constant-torque BPM and constant-airflow BPM motors, because they are more frequently used in multi-stage heating mode. In addition, DOE included additional labor hours to repair constant-torque BPM and constant-airflow BPM motors, as well as higher equipment cost for the BPM motors. Thus, on average, consumers with constant-torque BPM motors or constant-airflow BPM motors have higher life-cycle repair costs.
Goodman commented that DOE excluded annual repair and maintenance costs from its payback analyses, and it believes those annualized costs should be included. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 6) In response, DOE's rulemaking analysis, and this NOPR, use a simple payback period, which does not account for changes in operating expense over time. This payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Repair costs are generally most significant in the later years of a product's lifetime. Thus, they are not necessarily relevant to the payback periods that consumers actually experience.
DOE modeled furnace fan lifetime based on the distribution of furnace lifetimes developed for the recent energy conservation standards rulemaking for furnaces.
DOE used the same distribution of discount rates for furnace fans as it used in the recent energy conservation standards rulemaking for furnaces. For replacement furnaces, the average rate is 5.0 percent.
To estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by an energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC and PBP analysis considers the projected distribution (
Several parties commented that DOE's estimates of constant-torque BPM motor and constant-airflow BPM motor market growth seem overly optimistic. Ingersoll Rand commented that DOE overestimated the future market share of these motors. (Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions, No. 57, at p. 2) Lennox stated that the preliminary TSD's market growth assumptions are overstated for both constant-torque and variable-speed (ECM) motors. Lennox believes other factors increased adoption of higher-efficiency products between 2009 and 2011, namely, that was the period when a $1,500 Federal tax credit was available for furnaces with an AFUE rate of 95 percent or more. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 2) Morrison commented that the projections for ECM market penetration are based on information from 2010 that presents an overly positive picture for the growth absent incentives. It stated that the market share of ECM motors has fallen in 2012 and will likely remain around that level without additional incentives, although it noted that regional furnace and air conditioner standards would likely increase market penetration of ECM and X13 motors. (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 8) AHRI and Morrison conceded that DOE's regional standards for central air conditioners, heat pumps and furnaces may slightly increase the usage of ECM and X13 motors, but such an increase would still not match DOE's projected ECM market share. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 8) Rheem presented a forecast from its procurement group that shows the share of variable-speed motors declining to the 20–25 percent range in 2012 and remaining at that level in 2013. (Rheem, No. 54, at p. 13) EEI stated that DOE should take into consideration the impact of tax incentives for the purchase of energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment when estimating energy use baselines and projected energy savings. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 4) AHRI included a chart showing a declining trend in the usage of ECM and X13 motors after the expiration of the Federal tax credits. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 4)
AHRI commented that current trends suggest that the ECM and X13 market shares will be 25–30 percent and 10–15 percent respectively by 2019, assuming there are no further tax credit incentives in coming years. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 4) Goodman commented that DOE's assumed market shares for X13 and ECM fans are significantly higher than Goodman's estimates, and that recent values are probably skewed as a result of Federal tax credits. Goodman estimates that about 70 percent of shipments in 2019 are expected to be PSC, and ECM motors are likely to be twice the volume of X13 motors (
For the NOPR, DOE reviewed the information provided by the manufacturers and modified its estimate of market shares in 2019. The NOPR analysis assumes that the combined market share of constant-torque BPM fans and constant-airflow BPM fans will be 35 percent in 2019. The shares are 13 percent for constant-torque BPM fans and 22 percent for constant-airflow BPM fans. DOE estimated separate shares for replacement and new home applications.
The market shares of efficiency levels within the constant-torque BPM motor and constant-airflow BPM motor categories were derived from AHRI data on number of models.
As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA provides that a rebuttable presumption is established that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The calculation of this so-called rebuttable presumption payback period uses the same inputs as the calculation of the regular PBP for each sample household, but it uses average values instead of distributions, and the derivation of energy consumption and savings only uses the parameters specified by the proposed DOE test procedure for furnace fans rather than the method applied in the energy use analysis (described in section IV.E), which considers the characteristics of each sample household.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation standards, which includes, but is not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test discussed above. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification).
DOE uses forecasts of product shipments to calculate the national impacts of standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data and an analysis of key market drivers for each product.
The vast majority of furnace fans are shipped installed in furnaces, so DOE estimated furnace fan shipments by projecting furnace shipments in three market segments: (1) Replacements; (2) new housing; and (3) new owners in buildings that did not previously have a central furnace.
To project furnace replacement shipments, DOE developed retirement functions for furnaces from the lifetime estimates and applied them to the existing products in the housing stock. The existing stock of products is tracked by vintage and developed from historical shipments data. The shipments analysis uses a distribution of furnace lifetimes to estimate furnace replacement shipments.
To project shipments to the new housing market, DOE utilized projected new housing construction and historic saturation rates of various furnace and cooling product types in new housing. DOE used
DOE also included a small market segment consisting of households that become “new owners” of a gas furnace. This segment consists of households that have central air conditioning and non-central heating or central air conditioning and electric heating and choose to install a gas furnace.
Several parties stated that DOE's shipments estimates appear to be too high. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 5; Goodman, No. 50 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 54, at p. 15; Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions, No. 57, at p. 2; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 6) Goodman stated that DOE projects growth from approximately 3 million units in 2011 to more than 4 million in 2020, whereas Goodman estimates about 3.7 million units in 2020, or less if new energy conservation standards affect sales. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 6) AHRI, Morrison, and Rheem stated that prior to 2006, the demand for large homes with multiple furnace systems was more common than it is today, and it is not clear that the demand for homes with multiple furnace systems can be projected into the future. These commenters also argued that the shipment projections do not show an echo effect loss in replacement sales for the drop in furnace sales in 2009–2013. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 54 at p. 15) EEI stated that DOE's projected shipments of furnace fans do not appear consistent with other estimates of furnace shipments that EEI has observed. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 4) Lennox noted that DOE has projected significant market growth starting in 2012 and continuing forward, which does not appear to be supported by recent sales figures. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 2)
For the NOPR, DOE utilized more recent historical shipments data for gas-fired and oil-fired furnaces, which show a decline in 2012. DOE also reviewed and modified its projection of furnace shipments. The new projection (depicted in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD) shows a lower level of replacement shipments in the 2025–30 period, which is a consequence (
Regarding the comment from AHRI, Morrison, and Rheem, DOE's methodology does not presume that past demand for homes with multiple furnace systems will continue in the future. However, it does assume that furnaces installed in the past will be replaced, so the installation of multiple furnaces in the past would contribute to future growth in shipments.
In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered whether standards that require more-efficient furnace fans would have an impact on furnace shipments. Lennox stated that an overly-stringent standard for furnace fans would bring further increased costs to consumers, beyond the added product cost from tightened AFUE standards for furnaces, venting and drainage for condensing furnaces (required in northern States by regional standards), and standby mode and off mode power regulations. Lennox stated that higher purchase prices cause consumers to defer purchases, repair existing furnaces, and/or find less-efficient, higher-polluting alternate sources of heat. (Lennox, No. 47 at p. 3) Goodman commented that it would expect reduction in furnace sales after implementation of a new furnace fan standard, since many consumers will choose to repair instead of replacing products currently in their home, thereby avoiding the need to pay the initial cost of a more expensive, higher-efficiency product. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 6) Morrison also commented that higher upfront costs could lead to consumer switching to less-efficient products and push consumers to repair rather than replace units. (Morrison, No. 58, at p. 9)
DOE agrees that it is reasonable to expect that energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans that result in higher furnace prices would have some dampening effect on sales. Some consumers might choose to repair their existing furnace rather than purchase a new one, or perhaps install an alternative space heating product. To
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from new or amended energy conservation standards at specific efficiency levels. DOE determined the NPV and NES for the potential standard levels considered for the furnace fan product classes analyzed. To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all interested parties, DOE prepared a computer spreadsheet that uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. To assess the effect of input uncertainty on NES and NPV results, DOE has developed its spreadsheet model to conduct sensitivity analyses by running scenarios on specific input variables.
Analyzing impacts of potential energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans requires comparing projections of U.S. energy consumption with new or amended energy conservation standards against projections of energy consumption without the standards. The forecasts include projections of annual appliance shipments, the annual energy consumption of new appliances, and the purchase price of new appliances.
A key component of DOE's NIA analysis is the energy efficiencies projected over time for the base case (without new standards) and each of the standards cases. The projected efficiencies represent the annual shipment-weighted energy efficiency of the products under consideration during the shipments projection period (
In the preliminary analysis, DOE derived a growth rate in the market share of ECM fans by extrapolating the trend from 2005, when the ECM share was 10 percent, to 2010, when it was approximately 30 percent. In so doing, DOE considered the favorable cost-effectiveness of ECM fans and assumed that their market share would peak and level off at 79 percent.
AHRI and Rheem stated that DOE's assumption that the market share for furnace fans with ECM technology will increase to 75 percent is not supported by the industry data, especially since the Federal residential tax credits have expired. (AHRI, No. 48 at p 5; Rheem, No. 54, at p. 15) Goodman also stated that a 75 percent peak market penetration of ECM motors as estimated by DOE seems high. Goodman estimates a value in the range of 40–50 percent by mid-century. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 4)
For the NOPR, DOE reviewed the information provided by the manufacturers and modified its estimate of the long-run trend in market shares of constant-torque BPM and constant-airflow BPM motor furnace fans. The NOPR analysis assumes a long-run trend that results in market share of the constant-torque BPM and constant-airflow BPM furnace fans reaching 45 percent in 2048.
For the preliminary analysis, DOE used a “roll up” scenario for estimating the impacts of the potential energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. Under the “roll-up” scenario, DOE assumes: (1) product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration would “roll-up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) product efficiencies above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. To be consistent with the assumption regarding base-case efficiency after the compliance year, DOE assumed that for each standards case, the efficiency distribution in each product class remains unchanged after 2019. DOE used the same approach for the NOPR.
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered products in each potential standards case (TSL) with consumption in the base case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). Vintage represents the age of the product. DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the base case (without new efficiency standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors derived from the
DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Science, DOE announced its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). While DOE stated in that notice that it intended to use the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model to conduct the analysis, it also said it would review alternative methods, including the use of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). After evaluating both models and the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the
Goodman questioned the introduction of FFC measures of energy use. It noted that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(4), “energy use” is defined as “the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use . . .” (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 4)
The definition of “energy use” cited by Goodman is intended to apply at the product level. This is apparent from the complete definition: “The term `energy use' means the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test procedures under section 6293 of this title.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) The law also requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) The term “energy” means electricity or fossil fuels. (42 U.S.C. 6291(3)) The FFC metric provides a more complete accounting of the fossil fuels saved by standards, and its use is in keeping with DOE's statutory authority. The approach used to derive FFC multipliers for this NOPR is described in appendix 10–B of the NOPR TSD. DOE requests comment
The inputs for determining NPV are: (1) Total annual installed cost; (2) total annual savings in operating costs; (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings; (4) present value of costs; and (5) present value of savings. DOE calculated net savings each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculated savings over the lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period. DOE calculated NPV as the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of total installed costs. DOE used a discount factor based on real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent to discount future costs and savings to present values.
For the NPV analysis, DOE calculates increases in total installed costs as the difference in total installed cost between the base case and standards case (
DOE assumed no change in residential furnace fan prices over the 2019−2048 period. In addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using alternative price trends, specifically one in which prices decline over time, and another in which prices rise. These price trends are described in appendix 10–C of the NOPR TSD.
DOE expresses savings in operating costs as decreases associated with the lower energy consumption of products bought in the standards case compared to the base efficiency case. Total savings in operating costs are the product of savings per unit and the number of units of each vintage that survive in a given year.
DOE estimates the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
In the NOPR stage of a rulemaking, DOE conducts a consumer subgroup analysis. A consumer subgroup comprises a subset of the population that may be affected disproportionately by new or revised energy conservation standards (
For this NOPR, DOE evaluated impacts of potential standards on two subgroups: (1) Senior-only households and (2) low-income households. DOE identified these households in the RECS sample and used the LCC spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. The consumer subgroup results for the residential furnace fan TSLs are presented in section V.B.1 of this notice.
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impact of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential furnace fans and to calculate the potential impact of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs are data on the industry cost structure, product costs, shipments, and assumptions about markups and conversion expenditures. The key output is the industry net present value (INPV). Different sets of assumptions (markup scenarios) will produce different results. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends. The complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
For this rulemaking, DOE considers the “furnace fan industry” to consist of manufacturers who assemble furnace fans as a component of the HVAC products addressed in this rulemaking.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential furnace fans industry that includes a top-down cost analysis of manufacturers used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared an industry cash-flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of a new energy conservation standard. In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) create a need for increased investment; (2) raise production costs per unit; and (3) alter revenue due to higher per-unit prices and possible changes in sales volumes.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed interviews with a representative cross-section of manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns. See section IV.J.4 for a description of the key issues manufacturers raised during the interviews.
Additionally, in Phase 3, DOE evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by new standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash-flow analysis. For example, small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry average could be more negatively affected. DOE identified one subgroup (
DOE applied the small business size standards published by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to determine whether a company is considered a small business. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized as a small business under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333415, “Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing,” a residential furnace fan manufacturer and its affiliates may employ a
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM analysis uses a standard, annual cash-flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that could result from new energy conservation standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 2013 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing to 2048. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. For residential furnace fan manufacturers, DOE used a real discount rate of 7.8 percent, which was derived from industry financials and then modified according to feedback received during manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares changes in INPV between a base case and each standards case. The difference in INPV between the base case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE collected this information on the critical GRIM inputs from a number of sources, including publicly-available data and interviews with a number of manufacturers (described in the next section). The GRIM results are shown in section V.B.2.a. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Manufacturing a higher-efficiency product is typically more expensive than manufacturing a baseline product due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs of the analyzed products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making these product cost data key GRIM inputs for DOE's analysis.
In the MIA, DOE used the MPCs for each considered efficiency level calculated in the engineering analysis, as described in section IV.C and further detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. In addition, DOE used information from its teardown analysis, described in chapter 5 of the TSD, to disaggregate the MPCs into material, labor, and overhead costs. To calculate the MPCs for equipment above the baseline, DOE added the incremental material, labor, and overhead costs from the engineering cost-efficiency curves to the baseline MPCs. These cost breakdowns and product markups were validated and revised with manufacturers during manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment forecasts derived from the shipments analysis from 2013 (the base year) to 2048 (the end year of the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional details.
For the standards-case shipment forecast, the GRIM uses the NIA standards-case shipment forecasts. DOE assumes a new efficiency distribution in the standards case, in which product efficiencies in the base case that did not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard in the year that compliance is required.
New energy conservation standards would cause manufacturers to incur one-time conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) Product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are one-time investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with the new energy conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are one-time investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled.
To evaluate the level of capital conversion expenditures manufacturers would likely incur to comply with new energy conservation standards, DOE used manufacturer interviews to gather data on the anticipated level of capital investment that would be required at each efficiency level. DOE validated manufacturer comments through estimates of capital expenditure requirements derived from the product teardown analysis and engineering analysis described in chapter 5 of the TSD.
DOE assessed the product conversion costs at each considered efficiency level by integrating data from quantitative and qualitative sources. DOE considered market-share-weighted feedback regarding the potential costs of each efficiency level from multiple manufacturers to determine conversion costs such as R&D expenditures and certification costs. Manufacturer data were aggregated to better reflect the industry as a whole and to protect confidential information.
In general, DOE assumes that all conversion-related investments occur between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The investment figures used in the GRIM can be found in section IV.J.2 of this notice. For additional information on the estimated product and capital conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
In the NIA, DOE modeled shipments with a roll-up scenario to represent possible standards-case efficiency distributions for the years beginning 2019 (the year that compliance with new standards is proposed to be required) through 2048 (the end of the analysis period). The roll-up scenario represents the case in which all shipments in the base case that do not meet the new standard would roll up to meet the new standard level, with the efficiency of products already at the new standard level remaining unchanged. Consumers in the base case who purchase products above the standard level are not affected as they are assumed to continue to purchase the
As discussed above, MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (
Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE applied a single uniform “gross margin percentage” markup across all efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product class. As production costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the absolute dollar markup will increase as well. Based on publicly-available financial information for manufacturers of residential furnace fans and comments from manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed the non-production cost markup—which includes SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, interest, and profit—to be the following for each residential furnace fan product class:
Because this markup scenario assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain their gross margin percentage markups as production costs increase in response to a new energy conservation standard, it represents a high bound to industry profitability.
In the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturer markups are set so that operating profit one year after the compliance date of the new energy conservation standard is the same as in the base case. Under this scenario, as the costs of production increase under a standards case, manufacturers are generally required to reduce their markups to a level that maintains base-case operating profit. The implicit assumption behind this markup scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars after compliance with the new standard is required. Therefore, operating margin in percentage terms is squeezed (reduced) between the base case and standards case. DOE adjusted the manufacturer markups in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in the base case. This markup scenario represents a low bound to industry profitability under a new energy conservation standard.
During the preliminary analysis public meeting, interested parties commented on the assumptions and results of the preliminary analysis TSD. Oral and written comments addressed several topics, including testing and certification burdens, cumulative regulatory burdens, compliance date, impacts on small businesses, and conversion costs.
Manufacturers expressed concerns about the potential testing and certification burdens that may be associated with a new furnace fan energy conservation standard. Ingersoll Rand commented that the rulemaking would result in additional burden from testing, certification, and compliance, leading to an increased cost for consumers. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at p. 2) Rheem stated that, in the past, there has been no requirement for manufacturers to test and report furnace airflow data according to any industry or governmental standard. In addition, Rheem added that there have been no certification requirements that require the testing of multiple samples. Therefore, Rheem concluded that it is not reasonable to assume that manufacturers already have the data available to rate hundreds of current furnace models. For companies like Rheem, which have a large number of basic models, the commenter lamented that compliance with new testing requirements would create a significant burden. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 3) In order to relieve some of the testing burden, Mortex recommended that DOE should allow manufacturers to use Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods (AEDMs). (Mortex, No. 43 at p. 25) Mortex also recommended that DOE should use an alternative test procedure that is integrated with AFUE testing so that all models do not have to be tested separately under the residential furnace fan test procedure. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 3) Manufacturers were also concerned that the time needed to certify all their products would reduce investment in innovative technologies, because fewer resources would be available for R&D. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 16)
DOE recognizes the concerns that manufacturers have regarding test burden. As discussed in section III.A, DOE proposed in the April 2, 2013 test procedure SNOPR to adopt a modified version of an alternative test method recommended by AHRI and other furnace fan manufacturers that aligns the residential furnace fan test procedure with the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces to significantly reduce burden on industry. 78 FR 19606. DOE also estimated the capital expenditure, time to test, and cost to test according to the proposed residential furnace fan test procedure in the SNOPR. DOE found that the proposed test procedure would not result in significant capital expenditures for manufacturers, because they would not have to acquire or use any test equipment beyond the equipment already used to conduct the test method specified in the DOE residential furnace test procedure (
Interested parties expressed concern over the cumulative regulatory burden that would result from a residential furnace fan energy conservation standard. Morrison commented that the energy conservation standards that already apply to residential HVAC products, in combination with a standard for furnace fans, would significantly increase manufacturer burden. (Morrison, No. 43 at p. 23) Both AHRI and Morrison stated that DOE's current estimation of the incremental cost of testing furnace fans (at less than 2 percent of the manufacturer selling price) does not account for the additional burden placed on furnace manufacturers that must now also certify standby mode and off mode energy consumption, along with AFUE. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 7; Morrison, No. 58 at p. 10) Furthermore, Morrison commented that several of the manufacturers who are impacted by this residential furnace fans rulemaking face even greater cumulative regulatory burden, because they also produce other products regulated by DOE. (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 10)
Instead of creating a set of residential furnace fan standards through a separate energy conservation rulemaking, manufacturers and efficiency experts advocated for combining all furnace-related standards into one rulemaking or to have only one metric for all furnace-related products. CA IOU recommended that DOE should, in future iterations of furnace-related standards, combine CAC/HP, furnaces, and furnace fans into a single rulemaking, given their interrelated performance and energy consumption. (CA IOU, No. 56 at p. 2) Morrison and Rheem were also concerned that the cost of certifying furnace fan efficiency ratings would increase upfront costs for consumers and therefore lead them to choose less-efficient products (
DOE realizes that the cumulative effect of multiple regulations on an industry may significantly increase the burden faced by manufacturers that need to comply with regulations and testing requirements from different organizations and levels of government. DOE takes into account the cumulative cost of multiple regulations on manufacturers in the cumulative regulatory burden section of its analysis. Additionally, DOE considers the cumulative regulatory burden as part of its decision process in setting proposed standards. Further information on cumulative regulatory burden can be found in section V.B.2.e of this notice and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Efficiency advocates expressed support for a compliance date sooner than five years after publication of the final rule, because it would result in additional energy savings. Earthjustice commented that EPCA does not mandate a lead time of five years for furnace fans because furnace fans are not listed in section 325(m) (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(ii)) as a product to which a 5-year lead time applies. (Earthjustice, No. 49 at p. 2) In a joint comment (hereinafter referred to as the joint comment), the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance encouraged DOE to consider a compliance date three years after publication of the final rule. According to the joint commenters, a three-year lead time for manufacturers is feasible, because the efficiency levels that DOE evaluated for the preliminary analysis are based on technologies that are already widely employed in current HVAC products—namely ECM and X13 motors. (ACEEE,
However, according to Goodman, EPCA mandates a lead time of greater than five years. Goodman commented that EPCA prohibits a manufacturer from being forced to apply new standards to a product that has had other new standards applied to it within a 6-year period. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) Therefore, the earliest effective date for new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, pursuant to EPCA, would be January 1, 2021 because a new AFUE standard will become effective on May 1, 2013 and a new SEER/HSPF standard will become effective January 1, 2015. (Goodman, No. 50 at p. 8)
In response to these comments regarding the appropriate compliance date for residential furnace fan standards, DOE agrees with the joint commenters' observation that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(ii), EPCA does not specify furnace fans as a product with a 5-year lead time. DOE does not agree with Goodman's interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) as prohibiting a compliance date prior to January 2021. DOE has tentatively concluded that 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) is only applicable to amendments to existing standards, and residential furnace fans are covered products that have not been previously regulated. Furnace fans are explicitly addressed only at 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D), which does not specify any compliance dates. Therefore, since EPCA does not mandate a specific lead time for furnace fans, DOE considered the actions required by manufacturers to comply with the proposed standard to determine an appropriate lead-time. During manufacturer interviews, DOE found that standards would result in manufacturers' extending R&D beyond the furnace fan assembly to understand the impacts on the design and performance of the furnace or modular blower in which the furnace fan is integrated. To comply with the proposed standard, manufacturers may have to alter not only the designs and fabrication processes for the furnace fan assembly, but also for the furnace or modular blower into which the furnace fan is integrated. Similar products that require similar actions for compliance typically have lead times of five years. For these reasons, DOE selected a 5-year compliance date.
DOE received comments regarding its analysis of small businesses. Mortex formally requested that DOE prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis since it believes that DOE has not certified that the amendments in the test procedure proposed rule do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (Mortex, No. 59 at p. 3) During the preliminary analysis public meeting, Unico asked whether small manufacturers will be included in DOE's cost-benefit analysis. (Unico, No. 43 at p. 56) However, Ingersoll Rand is concerned that DOE limits the manufacturer analysis to only small manufacturers. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 57 at p. 2)
For the manufacturer impact analysis, DOE determined the impact of a new standard on the entire residential furnace fans industry, including manufacturers of all sizes. However, DOE also evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by new standards. For this rulemaking, DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup and discusses the impacts on
Several manufacturers expressed concern as to the capital conversion costs that may be associated with a new standard. Rheem stated that stringent standards may require significant capital conversion costs and that this is a key issue for the MIA. (Rheem, No. 54 at p. 16) Morrison expressed a similar concern, stating that manufacturers may incur significant capital conversion costs at “overly burdensome” regulation levels. (Morrison, No. 58 at p. 9)
DOE acknowledges manufacturers' concerns regarding capital conversion costs and carefully took this matter into account in developing its proposal. During manufacturer interviews, DOE requested information about potential conversion costs at each efficiency level for each product class. DOE evaluated the information gathered during the interviews, as well as data from the engineering analysis, to determine capital conversion costs. Conversion costs are discussed in detail in section V.B.2.a of this notice and in chapter 12 of the TSD.
DOE considers the manufacturer of the HVAC product in which the residential furnace fan is integrated to be the furnace fan manufacturer. DOE is aware that HVAC product manufacturers purchase many of the components in the furnace fan assembly (
During the manufacturer interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns about this rulemaking. The following sections describe the most significant issues identified by manufacturers. DOE also considered all other concerns expressed by manufacturers in its analyses. However, manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way that it does public comments in the comment summaries and DOE's responses throughout the rest of this notice.
All interviewed manufacturers expressed concerns about testing and certification burdens. In particular, manufacturers were concerned about the additional time required to test products for compliance with the new standard. Because the test procedure proposed in the May 15, 2012 furnace fan test procedure NOPR (77 FR 28674) is different from testing methods that are currently being used for residential furnaces, manufacturers argued that a significant amount of time would need to be invested. Some manufacturers suggested that the testing burden could be reduced if the testing for FER could be coordinated with testing for AFUE. In general, manufacturers were more concerned about the additional time and labor required to conduct the testing rather than the cost of testing equipment and stations, which were expected to be minimal.
As explained in section IV.K.3.a, DOE recognizes the concerns that manufacturers have regarding test burden and has issued a test procedure SNOPR that would align the proposed residential furnace fan test procedure with the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces, thereby reducing the burden on manufacturers. 78 FR 19606 (April 2, 2013).
During interviews, manufacturers raised concerns about the potential of new furnace fan energy conservations standards to cause the residential furnace fan market to contract. Manufacturers claimed that an increase in overall product costs, resulting from component changes or increased test burden, would lead to a reduced volume of furnace sales. They stated that higher costs could drive consumers to purchase refurbished or repaired units instead of new products. Higher costs might also push consumers towards using alternative heating technologies (
Although the production costs for furnace fans are estimated to increase with higher efficiency levels, DOE does not expect overall shipments of furnaces to decrease due to an increase in standards. On the contrary, based on the shipments analysis, total shipments for the furnace fan industry are not expected to decrease in the years following the standards compliance year. Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD provides more information on shipment estimates during the analysis period.
DOE identified a number of cumulative regulations that may affect residential furnace fan manufacturers. Interviewed manufacturers mentioned the following regulations as potentially having an impact and contributing to burden: (1) DOE Energy Conservation Standards for Furnaces and Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; (2) DOE's Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement rulemaking; (3) DOE's Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternate Rating Methods rulemaking; (4) EPA's phaseout of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs); (5) EPA's Energy Star program; (6) State regulations such as California Title 24; (7) the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1111; (8) Canadian energy efficiency regulations;
DOE also asked manufacturers under what circumstances they would be able to coordinate expenditures related to other regulations. Manufacturers emphasized the benefits of having fewer metrics to evaluate and limiting the scope of coverage for residential furnace fans to strictly those units housed in furnaces. In addition, manufacturers requested that DOE consider harmonizing with international standards to lessen the cumulative burden. Manufacturers also requested that the compliance date for some standards be pushed out to allow enough time for product development and limit stranded assets.
DOE recognizes and takes into account the cumulative cost of multiple regulations on manufacturers in the cumulative regulatory burden section of its analysis. Further information on cumulative regulatory burden can be found in section V.B.2.e of this notice and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
In addition to the regulatory burden imposed by multiple standards, manufacturers were concerned with issues arising from multiple metrics that all apply to a single product. Furnaces alone already have energy efficiency rating metrics for AFUE and standby power, so with an additional FER metric, furnaces would be labeled with three different metrics. Manufacturers stated during interviews that three metrics are too many for a single product, and that consumers who use these rating metrics to evaluate and compare product performance may get confused if multiple metrics are labeled on one furnace. Manufacturers recommended that DOE should focus on the thermal performance of the furnace and not the fan energy consumption, which is a small fraction of a furnace's overall energy use.
In response, DOE is required by EPCA to consider and establish energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans by December 31, 2013. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) DOE is also required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product prior to the adoption of an energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Pursuant to these statutory requirements in EPCA, DOE proposes new energy conservation standards in this notice, based on its proposed rating metric (FER). DOE requests comment and information on the potential for significant consumer confusion regarding the FER metric for residential furnace fans.
Manufacturers questioned the use of X13 and ECM motors as a design option to improve furnace fan efficiency. As these motors employ more complex controls and have higher maintenance costs than PSC motors, it was suggested that long-term reliability may be an issue. Manufacturers expect that the number of warranty claims, as well as warranty-associated costs, would increase if use of X13s and ECMs increased. X13s and ECMs are also more-expensive components that would increase the initial cost of the products in which they are used. Since these motors would increase product price but reduce reliability, manufacturers anticipate more consumers seeking to repair or refurbish existing products rather than purchase new ones. Furthermore, manufacturers may face challenges in obtaining a sufficient supply of motors due to the potential supply limitations of ECMs.
DOE recognizes the concerns that manufacturers have about the reliability of ECM motors. However, DOE did not receive sufficient quantitative data from manufacturers regarding the failure rates and number of warranty claims for the different motor types to make any firm conclusions about their reliability. Consequently, DOE retained X13 and ECM motors as a design option for consideration.
In the emissions analysis, DOE estimates the reduction in power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
DOE conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors that were derived from data in EIA's
For CH
EIA prepares the
SO
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO
Beginning in 2015, however, SO
CSAPR established a cap on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps, and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. For this rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
Power plants may emit particulates from the smoke stack, which are known as direct particulate matter (PM) emissions. NEMS does not account for direct p.m. emissions from power plants. DOE is investigating the possibility of using other methods to estimate reduction in p.m. emissions due to standards. The great majority of ambient p.m. associated with power plants is in the form of secondary sulfates and nitrates, which are produced at a significant distance from power plants by complex atmospheric chemical reactions that often involve the gaseous emissions of power plants, mainly SO
As part of the development of this NOPR, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
For this NOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for those values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing CO
As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of information about: (1) Future emissions of greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and biological environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.
Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions. For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying the future benefits by an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this rulemaking, however.
It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
Economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a “domestic” SCC value of $2 per metric ton of CO
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO
Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.
Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and discount
The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th-percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from climate change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects, although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO
The SCC values used for this notice were generated using the most recent versions of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.
It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO
DOE multiplied the CO
AHRI agreed that the monetization of emission reductions is an important factor to consider, but it stated that DOE has no statutory responsibility to establish a monetary value for potential environmental benefits of appliance and equipment standards. It added that there is currently no consensus on any single estimate of the value of CO
In response, it is noted that EPCA directs DOE to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE determines whether a standard is economically justified by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, a number of factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) Among these factors is “other factors the Secretary [of Energy] considers relevant.” The Secretary considers the economic benefits that may accrue to society from reduction of CO
AHRI also stated that DOE should not allow evaluation of environmental impacts to negate or make moot what has always been, and should remain, the core analysis in appliance and equipment standards rulemakings: The consumer payback period and life-cycle cost analysis. (AHRI, No. 48 at p. 7) In response, DOE notes that environmental and other impacts associated with reduced emissions are but one of the factors that DOE considers in determining whether a standard is economically justified.
DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO
DOE did not monetize Hg or SO
The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation standards. In the utility impact analysis, DOE analyzes the changes in electric installed capacity and generation that result for each trial standard level. The utility impact analysis uses a variant of NEMS, which is a public domain, multi-sectored, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. DOE uses a variant of this model, referred to as NEMS–BT,
NEEP recommended estimating the value of capacity reduction due to appliance standards as part of the NOPR, because reducing the need for electricity capacity is an important benefit that minimum efficiency standards bring to the country and various regions. Noting that the NOPR provides estimates of the expected reduction in electricity capacity due to residential furnace fan standards, NEEP urged the Department to also include a financial benefit estimate associated with these capacity reductions. (NEEP, No. 51 at p. 3)
For the NOPR, DOE used NEMS–BT, along with EIA data on the capital cost of various power plant types, to estimate the reduction in national expenditures for electricity generating capacity due to potential residential furnace fan standards. The method used and the results are described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE is evaluating whether parts of the cost reduction are a transfer and thus, according to guidance provided by OMB to Federal agencies, should not be included in the estimates of the benefits and costs of a regulation.
EEI stated that as part of its analysis on the potential impact of new residential furnace fan efficiency standards on utilities, DOE should consider the impacts of increased demands on gas and oil systems, especially during peak fossil fuel demand days. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 2) In response, DOE has tentatively concluded that the increase in gas and oil use associated with higher furnace fan efficiency levels is expected to be very small in the context of overall gas and oil demand, and as such, DOE believes that the impact on gas and oil systems would be insignificant.
EEI stated that with respect to electric utilities, DOE should ensure that it does not overestimate the potential for residential furnace fan energy conservation standards to reduce peak load demand. According to EEI, the vast majority of electric utilities in the U.S. reach peak demand during the summer air conditioning season. (EEI, No. 65 at p. 2) In response, DOE's analysis with NEMS uses a demand load shape that approximates the daily and seasonal load of residential furnace fans. Thus, the resulting estimates of changes in generating capacity due to higher residential furnace fan efficiency are reasonable.
Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards; the MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs created or eliminated in the national economy due to: (1) Reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased consumer spending on the purchase of new products; and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.
For the standard levels considered in this NOPR, DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).
For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
This section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to potential energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for furnace fans, and the proposed standard levels that DOE sets forth in this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the TSD supporting this notice.
DOE developed trial standard levels (TSLs) that combine efficiency levels for each product class of residential furnace fans. Table V.1 presents the efficiency levels for each product class in each TSL. TSL 6 consists of the max-tech efficiency levels. TSL 5 consists of those efficiency levels that provide the maximum NPV using a 7-percent discount rate (see section V.B.3 for NPV results). TSL 4 consists of those efficiency levels that provide the highest NPV using a 7-percent discount rate, and that also result in a higher percentage of consumers that receive an LCC benefit than experience an LCC loss (see section V.B.1 for LCC results). TSL 3 uses efficiency level 3 for all product classes. TSL 2 consists of efficiency levels that are the same as TSL 3 for non-weatherized gas furnace fans, weatherized gas furnace fans, and electric furnace fans, but are at efficiency level 1 for oil-fired furnace fans and manufactured home furnace fans. TSL 1 consists of the most common efficiency levels in the current
To evaluate the economic impact of the considered efficiency levels on consumers, DOE conducted an LCC analysis for each efficiency level. More-efficient residential furnace fans would affect these consumers in two ways: (1) Annual operating expense would decrease; and (2) purchase price would increase. Inputs used for calculating the LCC include total installed costs (
The output of the LCC model is a mean LCC savings (or cost) for each product class, relative to the base case efficiency distribution for residential furnace fans. The LCC analysis also provides information on the percentage of consumers for whom an increase in the minimum efficiency standard would have a positive impact (net benefit), a negative impact (net cost), or no impact.
DOE also performed a PBP analysis as part of the LCC analysis. The PBP is the number of years it would take for the consumer to recover the increased costs of higher-efficiency products as a result of energy savings based on the operating cost savings. The PBP is an economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without discounting. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provide five key outputs for each efficiency level above the baseline, as reported in Table V.2 through Table V.9 for the considered TSLs. (Results for all efficiency levels are reported in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.) These outputs include the proportion of residential furnace fan purchases in which the purchase of a furnace fan compliant with the new energy conservation standard creates a net LCC increase, no impact, or a net LCC savings for the consumer. Another output is the average LCC savings from standards-compliant products, as well as the median PBP for the consumer investment in standards-compliant products. Savings are measured relative to the base case efficiency distribution (see section IV.F.4), not the baseline efficiency level.
The results in the above tables reflect the assumptions for use of constant circulation in the proposed DOE test procedure for furnace fans. As discussed in section IV.E, DOE also performed a sensitivity analysis for non-weatherized gas furnace fans to estimate the effect on the LCC results if it assumed half as much use of continuous circulation.
DOE estimated the impacts of the considered efficiency levels (TSLs) on the following consumer subgroups: (1) Senior-only households; and (2) low-income households. The results of the consumer subgroup analysis indicate that for residential furnace fans, senior-only households and low-income households experience lower average LCC savings and longer payback periods than consumers overall, with the difference being larger for low-income households. The difference between the two subgroups and all consumers is larger for non-weatherized, non-condensing gas furnace fans (see Table V.12) than for non-weatherized, condensing gas furnace fans (see Table V.13). Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD provides more detailed discussion on the consumer subgroup analysis and results for the other product classes.
As discussed in section IV.F.5, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that, in essence, an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification. For comparison with the more detailed analytical results, DOE calculated a rebuttable presumption payback period for each TSL. Table V.14 shows the rebuttable presumption payback periods for the residential furnace fans product classes.
As noted above, DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential furnace fans. The following section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
Table V.15 and Table V.16 depict the financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of new energy standards on manufacturers of residential furnace fans, as well as the conversion costs that DOE expects manufacturers would incur for all product classes at each TSL. To evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the residential furnace fans industry, DOE modeled two different mark-up scenarios using different assumptions that correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to potential new energy conservation standards: (1) The preservation of gross margin percentage; and (2) the preservation of operating profit. Each of these scenarios is discussed immediately below.
To assess the lower (less severe) end of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario, in which a uniform “gross margin percentage” markup is applied across all potential efficiency levels. In this scenario, DOE assumed that a manufacturer's absolute dollar markup would increase as production costs increase in the standards case.
To assess the higher (more severe) end of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to earn the same operating margin in absolute dollars in the standards case as in the base case. In this scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required to convert their facilities to produce new standards-compliant products, operating profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a percentage of revenue.
The set of results below shows potential INPV impacts for residential furnace fan manufacturers; Table V.15 reflects the lower bound of impacts, and Table V.16 represents the upper bound.
Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values at each TSL. In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case and each standards case that results from the sum of discounted cash flows from the base year 2013 through 2048, the end of the analysis period. To provide perspective on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes in the discussion of the results below a comparison of free cash flow between the base case and the standards case at each TSL in the year before new standards would take effect. This figure provides an understanding of the magnitude of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by the industry in the base case.
TSL 1 represents the most common efficiency levels in the current market for all product classes. At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$3.0 million to $0.7 million, or a change in INPV of −1.2 percent to 0.3 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 2.8 percent to $11.78 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates no capital conversion costs at TSL 1, because manufacturers would be able to use a different motor type without making significant changes to their manufacturing equipment or production processes. DOE anticipates minor product conversion costs associated with redesigning products that are currently below the proposed efficiency level and updating product literature.
TSL 2 represents EL 1 for the oil and manufactured home product classes, and EL 3 for all other product classes. At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$26.7 million to $13.5 million, or a change in INPV of −10.6 percent to 5.3 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 6.9 percent to $11.28 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates no capital conversion costs at TSL 2, because manufacturers would be able to use a different motor type without making significant changes to their manufacturing equipment or production processes. DOE anticipates product conversion costs at TSL 2 to be higher than those at TSL 1, because more products in the market (with the exception of oil furnaces and manufactured housing products) would need to be redesigned in order to meet the higher proposed efficiency levels. Additional product literature would also need to be updated for the redesigned products.
TSL 3 represents EL 3 for all product classes. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$28.6 million to $12.9 million, or a change in INPV of −11.3 percent to 5.1 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 7.2 percent to $11.25 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates no capital conversion costs at TSL 3, because manufacturers would be able to use a different motor type without making significant changes to their manufacturing equipment or production processes. DOE anticipates product conversion costs at TSL 3 to be slightly higher than those at TSL 2 because more manufactured housing products in the market would need to be
TSL 4 represents the efficiency levels that provide the highest NPV using a 7-percent discount rate, and that also result in a higher percentage of consumers receiving an LCC benefit rather than an LCC loss. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$54.4 million to $33.8 million, or a change in INPV of −21.6 percent to 13.4 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 7.9 percent to $11.17 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates no capital conversion costs at TSL 4, because manufacturers would be able to use a different motor type without making significant changes to their manufacturing equipment or production processes. DOE anticipates product conversion costs at TSL 4 to be higher than those at TSL 3, because more products in the market (with the exception of oil furnaces) would need to be redesigned in order to meet the higher proposed efficiency levels. Additional product literature would also need to be updated for the redesigned products.
TSL 5 represents the efficiency levels that provide the maximum NPV using a 7-percent discount rate. At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$55.5 million to $34.2 million, or a change in INPV of −22.0 percent to 13.6 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 8.0 percent to $11.15 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates no capital conversion costs at TSL 5, because manufacturers would be able to use a different motor type without making significant changes to their manufacturing equipment or production processes. DOE anticipates product conversion costs at TSL 5 to be slightly higher than those at TSL 4, because more oil furnaces and manufactured housing electric furnaces in the market would need to be redesigned in order to meet the higher proposed efficiency levels. Additional product literature would also need to be updated for the redesigned products.
TSL 6 represents the max-tech efficiency level for all product classes. At TSL 6, DOE estimates impacts on INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers to range from −$170.1 million to $58.2 million, or a change in INPV of −67.5 percent to 23.1 percent. At this potential standard level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 598.7 percent to −$60.44 million, compared to the base-case value of $12.12 million in the year before the compliance date (2018).
DOE anticipates very high capital conversion costs at TSL 6 because manufacturers would need to make significant changes to their manufacturing equipment and production processes in order to accommodate the use of backward-inclined impellers. This design option would require modifying, or potentially eliminating, current fan housings. DOE also anticipates high product conversion costs to develop new designs with backward-inclined impellers for all their products. Some manufacturers may also have stranded assets from specialized machines for building fan housing that can no longer be used.
To quantitatively assess the impacts of energy conservation standards on direct employment in the residential furnace fan industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of employees in the base case and at each TSL from 2013 through 2048. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM),
The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to domestic production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the annual payment per production worker (production worker hours times the labor rate found in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 ASM). The estimates of production workers in this section cover workers, including line-supervisors who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling a product within the manufacturing facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are also included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking.
The total direct employment impacts calculated in the GRIM are the sum of the changes in the number of production workers resulting from the new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, as compared to the base case.
For residential furnace fans, DOE does not expect significant changes in domestic employment levels from baseline to EL 5. One manufacturer commented during interviews that employment may be affected if their profit margins decreased due to a new standard, in which case consideration may be given to moving production facilities to another country, but changes in employment due to standards are generally not a major concern for manufacturers of residential furnace fans, because all efficiency levels from baseline to EL 5 can be achieved by substituting a higher-efficiency component for an existing component. DOE found during manufacturer interviews that the assembly processes for integrating the higher-efficiency components do not differ significantly from those used for existing components. For instance, manufacturers design their housings and motor mounts to be compatible with all motor types. Consequently, no additional labor is required to integrate higher-efficiency motors and controls to reach EL 1 through EL 3, and labor costs will be equivalent to the baseline at those levels. The same is true for integration of components that enable multi-stage heating capabilities (in addition to higher-efficiency motors) to reach EL 4 and EL 5.
The only standard level at which significant changes in employment would possibly be expected to occur is at EL6, the max-tech level. At EL 6, DOE estimates increases in labor costs because backwards-inclined impeller assemblies are heavier and require more robust mounting approaches than are currently used for forward-curved impeller assemblies. The alternate mounting approaches needed to integrate backward-inclined impeller assemblies could require manufacturers to modify their current assembly processes, resulting in increased labor. However, DOE received limited feedback from manufacturers regarding the labor required to produce furnace
DOE notes that the employment impacts discussed here are independent of the indirect employment impacts to the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
According to the residential furnace fan manufacturers interviewed, the new energy conservation standards proposed in this NOPR would not significantly affect manufacturers' production capacities. Some manufacturers mentioned that capacity could potentially be impacted by additional testing requirements and bottlenecks with sourcing if motor suppliers cannot keep up with demand, but concerns were not generally expressed about manufacturing capacity until max-tech levels. Thus, at the proposed TSL, DOE believes manufacturers would be able to maintain manufacturing capacity levels and continue to meet market demand under new energy conservation standards.
Small manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. As discussed in section IV.J using average cost assumptions developed for an industry cash-flow estimate is inadequate to assess differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups.
For the residential furnace fans industry, DOE identified and evaluated the impact of new energy conservation standards on one subgroup, specifically small manufacturers. The SBA defines a “small business” as having 750 employees or less for NAICS 333415, “Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.” Based on this definition, DOE identified 14 manufacturers in the residential furnace fans industry that qualify as small businesses. For a discussion of the impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup, see the regulatory flexibility analysis in section VI.B of this notice and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of recent or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
During previous stages of this rulemaking, DOE identified a number of requirements in addition to new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans. The following section briefly summarizes those identified regulatory requirements and addresses comments DOE received with respect to cumulative regulatory burden, as well as other key related concerns that manufacturers raised during interviews.
This notice proposes CC&E requirements for residential furnace fans. In addition, the April 2, 2013 test procedure SNOPR included proposed sampling requirements for CC&E testing of residential furnace fans that mandate that, unless otherwise specified, a minimum of two units need to be tested for each basic model. 78 FR 19606, 19625.
Manufacturers indicated during interviews that the regulatory burden from certification and compliance testing is one of the biggest problems they face. One manufacturer stated that it could potentially shut down the industry due to the large number of basic models that need to be tested. DOE recognizes that the CC&E requirements contribute to cumulative regulatory burden. However, for the reasons discussed in section IV.J.3, DOE does not find that testing furnace fans according to its proposed test procedure would be unduly burdensome.
On June 27, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule in the
Since furnace fan manufacturers are also manufacturers of the HVAC product in which the furnace fan is used, furnace fan manufacturers are subject to the amended energy conservation standards for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps. At the minimum energy efficiency levels selected for the direct final rule, DOE estimated that the total industry investment required to meet the amended energy conservation standards would be $28 million (in 2009$). At the minimum energy efficiency levels selected for this notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE estimates that the total industry investment would be $3.1 million. Manufacturers of furnace fans face product conversion costs related to standards for furnace fans, as well as product and capital conversion costs related to standards for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps.
The direct final rule for energy conservation standards for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps includes standards for energy efficiency as well as standards for standby mode and off mode energy consumption. DOE has completed a test procedure final rule for standby mode and off mode energy consumption in residential furnaces. 77 FR 76831 (Dec. 31, 2012). DOE is also preparing a test procedure for standby mode and off mode energy consumption in residential central air conditioners and heat pumps.
The U.S. is obligated under the Montreal Protocol to limit production and consumption of HCFCs through incremental reductions, culminating in a complete phaseout of HCFCs by 2030. On December 15, 2009, EPA published the “2010 HCFC Allocation Rule,” which allocates production and consumption allowances for HCFC–22 for each year between 2010 and 2014. 74 FR 66412. On January 4. 2012, EPA published the “2012 HCFC Allocation Proposed Rule,” which proposes to lift the regulatory ban on the production and consumption of HCFC–22 (following a court decision
HCFC–22, which is also known as R–22, is a popular refrigerant that is commonly used in air-conditioning products. Manufacturers of residential furnace fans who also manufacture residential central air conditioners must comply with the allowances established by the allocation rule, thereby facing a cumulative regulatory burden.
During interviews, some manufacturers stated that ENERGY STAR specifications for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps would be a source of cumulative regulatory burden. ENERGY STAR specifications are as follows:
DOE realizes that the cumulative effect of several regulations on an industry may significantly increase the burden faced by manufacturers that need to comply with multiple regulations and certification programs from different organizations and levels of government. However, DOE notes that certain standards, such as ENERGY STAR, are optional for manufacturers. Furthermore, for certain products listed in the table above, ENERGY STAR standards are equivalent to the standards set in DOE's June 27, 2011 direct final rule for energy conservation standards for residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps.
In June 2010, the Office of Energy Efficiency of National Resources Canada (NRCan) published a bulletin to announce the proposal of new electricity reporting requirements for air handlers used in residential central heating and cooling systems that are imported into Canada for sale or lease.
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations includes building energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The California Energy Commission (CEC) published new standards in 2008, which became effective January 1, 2010, that include watts per cubic foot per minute (W/CFM) limits for fans used in central, residential HVAC systems.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” sets minimum efficiency standards for buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. On May 16, 2012, DOE published the final rule in the
Included in the ASHRAE standards are minimum efficiency levels for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. Several manufacturers of residential furnace fans also manufacture this equipment.
Rule 1111 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) currently requires residential furnaces installed in the District to meet a NO
The Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1111 affects manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, builders, and installers of residential furnaces. AHRI indicates that, although there are currently no manufacturers of fan-type gas-fired residential furnaces within the AQMD jurisdiction, some of these manufacturers do sell and distribute products installed in this District.
PAR 1111 also provides manufacturers with an alternative compliance option. For any furnace type, a manufacturer may request a delayed compliance date of up to three years if they submit a plan and pay an emission mitigation fee.
DOE discusses these and other requirements, and includes the full details of the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE also discusses the impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup in the regulatory flexibility analysis in section VI.B of this NOPR.
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings for residential furnace fans purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with amended standards (2019–2048). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. Table V.19 presents the estimated primary energy savings for each considered TSL, and Table V.20 presents the estimated FFC energy savings for each considered TSL. The energy savings in the tables below are net savings that reflect the subtraction of the additional gas or oil used by the furnace associated with higher-efficiency furnace fans. With improved fan efficiency, there is less heat from the motor, which means that the furnace needs to operate more. The approach for estimating national energy savings is further described in section IV.H.1.
The difference between primary energy savings and FFC energy savings for all TSLs is small (less than 1%), because the upstream energy savings associated with the electricity savings are partially (or fully, for TSL 2 and 3) offset by the upstream energy use from the additional gas or oil used by the furnace due to higher-efficiency furnace fans. The ranking of TSLs is not impacted by the use of FFC energy savings.
OMB Circular A–4
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for residential furnace fans. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.23. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2019–2027. As mentioned previously, this information is presented for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.
As noted in section IV.H.2, DOE assumed no change in residential furnace fan prices over the 2019–2048 period. In addition, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis using alternative price trends: One in which prices decline over time, and one in which prices increase over time. These price trends, and the NPV results from the associated sensitivity cases, are described in Appendix 10–C of the NOPR TSD.
DOE expects energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans to reduce energy costs for consumers, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. Those shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE understands that there are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term time frames (2019 and 2024), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to have negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents more detailed results about anticipated indirect employment impacts.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the standards it is proposing in this NOPR would not lessen the utility or performance of residential furnace fans.
DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new and amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (ii))
To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE has provided DOJ with copies of this notice and the TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in preparing the final rule, and DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that document.
An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to this rule is likely to improve the security of the nation's energy system by reducing overall demand for energy. Reduction in the growth of electricity demand resulting from energy conservation standards may also improve the reliability of the electricity system. Reductions in national electric generating capacity estimated for each considered TSL are reported in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
Energy savings from standards for the residential furnace fan products covered in this NOPR could also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V.24 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions projected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The table includes both power sector emissions and upstream emissions. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
As discussed in section IV.K, DOE did not include NO
As part of the analysis for this NOPR, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table V.27 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced full-fuel-cycle CO
Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) No other factors were considered in this analysis.
When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also “result in significant conservation of energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section summarize the quantitative analytical results for each TSL, based on the assumptions and methodology discussed herein. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard, and impacts on employment. Section V.B.1.b presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups. DOE discusses the impacts on direct employment in residential furnace fan manufacturing in section V.B.2.b, and discusses the indirect employment impacts in section V.B.3.c.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income (Reiss and White, 2005).
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.
Table V.28 through Table V.30 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for residential furnace fans. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of furnace fans purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with amended standards (2019–2048). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. Results that refer to primary energy savings are presented in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
First, DOE considered TSL 6, which would save an estimated total of 6.25 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 6 has an estimated NPV of consumer benefit of $3.65 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $17.95 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative CO
At TSL 6, the average LCC savings are positive for Non-weatherized, Non-condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Non-weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fan, Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Oil Furnace Fan, and Non-weatherized Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fans. The LCC savings are negative for Manufactured Home Non-weatherized, Non-condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Manufactured Home Non-weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fans, and Manufactured Home Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fans. The median payback period is lower than the median product lifetime (which is 22.6 years for gas and electric furnace fans) for all of the product classes. The share of consumers experiencing an LCC cost (increase in LCC) is higher than the share experiencing an LCC benefit (decrease in LCC) for all of the product classes.
At TSL 6, manufacturers may expect diminished profitability due to large increases in product costs, stranded assets, capital investments in equipment and tooling, and expenditures related to engineering and testing. The projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $170.1 million to an increase of $58.2 million based on DOE's manufacturer markup scenarios. The upper bound of $58.2 million is considered an optimistic scenario for manufacturers
Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for residential furnace fans, the benefits of significant energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO
Next, DOE considered TSL 5, which would save an estimated total of 4.629 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 5 has an estimated NPV of consumer benefit of $8.64 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $26.57 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative CO
At TSL 5, the average LCC savings are positive for all of the product classes. The median payback period is lower than the average product lifetime for all of the product classes. The share of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit (decrease in LCC) is higher than the share experiencing an LCC cost (increase in LCC) for five of the product classes (Non-Weatherized, Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Non-weatherized, Condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Weatherized Non-Condensing Gas Furnace Fans, Non-weatherized Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fans, and Manufactured Home Electric Furnace/Modular Blower Fans), but lower for the other three product classes.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $55.5 million to an increase of $34.2 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 22.0 percent in INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers.
Accordingly, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for residential furnace fans, the benefits of significant energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, positive average LCC savings for all of the product classes, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO
Next, DOE considered TSL 4, which would save an estimated total of 4.576 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. TSL 4 has an estimated NPV of consumer benefit of $8.51 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $26.16 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
The cumulative CO
At TSL 4, the average LCC savings are positive for all of the product classes. The median payback period is lower than the average product lifetime for all of the product classes. The share of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit (decrease in LCC) is higher than the share experiencing an LCC cost (increase in LCC) for all of the product classes.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $54.4 million to an increase of $33.8 million. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the lower bound of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 21.6 percent in INPV for residential furnace fan manufacturers.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the burdens, the Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for residential furnace fans, the benefits of significant energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, positive average LCC savings for all of the product classes, emission reductions and the estimated monetary value of the CO
The benefits and costs of these proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2012$, of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO
Although combining the values of operating savings and CO
Table V.32 shows the annualized values for the proposed standards for residential furnace fans. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2012$.) Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.8/ton in 2015, Table V.32 shows the cost of the residential furnace fans standards proposed in this rule is $290 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1585 million per year in reduced operating costs, $571 million in CO
Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The problems these proposed standards address are as follows:
(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the home appliance market.
(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of residential furnace fans that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, DOE has determined that this regulatory action is an “economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on this rule and that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that this NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For the manufacturers of residential furnace fans, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at:
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved industry trade association membership directories (including AHRI), public databases (
DOE initially identified at least 40 potential manufacturers of residential furnace fan products sold in the U.S. DOE then determined that 26 were large manufacturers, manufacturers that are foreign owned and operated, or manufacturers that do not produce products covered by this rulemaking. DOE was able to determine that approximately 14 manufacturers meet the SBA's definition of a “small business” and manufacture products covered by this rulemaking.
Before issuing this NOPR, DOE attempted to contact all the small business manufacturers of residential furnace fans it had identified. One of the small businesses consented to being interviewed during the MIA interviews. DOE also obtained information about small business impacts while interviewing large manufacturers.
The 14 identified domestic manufacturers of residential furnace fans that qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard account for a small fraction of industry shipments. Generally, manufacturers of furnaces are also manufacturers of furnace fan products. The market for domestic gas furnaces is almost completely held by seven large manufacturers, and small manufacturers in total account for only 1 percent of the market. These seven large manufacturers also control 97 percent of the market for central air conditioners. The market for manufactured home furnaces is primarily held by one large manufacturer. In contrast, the market for domestic oil furnaces is almost entirely comprised of small manufacturers.
The proposed standards for residential furnace fans could cause small manufacturers to be at a disadvantage relative to large manufacturers. One way in which small manufacturers could be at a disadvantage is that they may be disproportionately affected by product conversion costs. Product redesign, testing, and certification costs tend to be fixed and do not scale with sales volume. For each product model, small businesses must make investments in research and development to redesign their products, but because they have lower sales volumes, they must spread these costs across fewer units. In addition, because small manufacturers have fewer engineers than large manufacturers, they would need to allocate a greater portion of their available resources to meet a standard. Since engineers may need to spend more time redesigning and testing existing models as a result of the new standard, they may have less time to develop new products.
Furthermore, smaller manufacturers may lack the purchasing power of larger manufacturers. For example, since motor suppliers give discounts to manufacturers based on the number of motors they purchase, larger manufacturers may have a pricing advantage because they have higher volume purchases. This purchasing power differential between high-volume and low-volume orders applies to other furnace fan components as well, including the impeller fan blade, transformer, and capacitor.
Since the proposed standard for residential furnace fans could cause small manufacturers to be at a disadvantage relative to large manufacturers, DOE cannot certify that the proposed standards would not have a significant impact on a significant number of small businesses, and consequently, DOE has prepared this IRFA.
At TSL 4, the level proposed in this notice, DOE estimates no capital conversion costs and product conversion costs of $0.014 million for a typical small manufacturer, compared to product conversion costs of $0.431 million for a typical large manufacturer. These costs and their impacts are described in detail below.
To estimate how small manufacturers would be potentially impacted, DOE used the market share of small manufacturers to estimate the annual revenue, earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), and research and development (R&D) expense for a typical small manufacturer. DOE then compared these costs to the required product conversion costs at each TSL for both an average small manufacturer and an average large manufacturer (see Tables VI.1 and Table VI.2). In the following tables, TSL 4 represents the proposed standard.
Although conversion costs can be considered substantial for all companies, the impacts could be relatively greater for a typical small manufacturer because of much lower production volumes and the relatively fixed nature of the R&D resources required per model. Small manufacturers also have less engineering staff and lower R&D budgets. As a result, the product conversion costs incurred by a small manufacturer would likely be a larger percentage of its revenues, R&D
Based on the results in Table VI.1 and Table VI.2, DOE understands that the potential product conversions costs faced by small manufacturers may be proportionally greater than those faced by larger manufacturers. However, the total cost at TSL 4 of approximately $14,000 per small manufacturer is still a small percentage of a small manufacturer's total annual revenues (5.1 percent) and product conversion costs would also only be a one-time expense. Furthermore, TSLs lower than the proposed TSL would not result in significantly lower product conversion costs for small manufacturers.
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being proposed today.
The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from the other TSLs DOE considered. Although TSLs lower than the proposed TSLs would be expected to reduce the impacts on small entities, DOE is required by EPCA to establish standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technically feasible and economically justified, and result in a significant conservation of energy. Thus, DOE rejected the lower TSLs.
In addition to the other TSLs being considered, the NOPR TSD includes a regulatory impact analysis in chapter 17. For residential furnace fans, this report discusses the following policy alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and (5) early replacement. DOE does not intend to consider these alternatives further because they are either not feasible to implement without authority and funding from Congress, or are expected to result in energy savings that are much smaller (ranging from less than 1 percent to approximately 33 percent) than those that would be achieved by the proposed energy conservation standards.
DOE continues to seek input from small businesses that would be affected by this rulemaking and will consider comments received in the development of any final rule.
DOE is developing regulations to implement reporting requirements for energy conservation, water conservation, and design standards, and to address other matters including compliance certification, prohibited actions, and enforcement procedures for covered consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment covered by EPCA, including furnace fans. DOE will send an information collection approval to OMB under Control Number 1910–1400.
DOE is proposing that respondents must submit electronic forms using DOE's on-line Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) system.
The following are DOE estimates of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden imposed on manufacturers of residential furnace fans subject to the proposed certification provisions in this notice. These estimates take into account the time necessary to develop testing documentation, maintain all the documentation supporting the development of the certified rating for each basic model, complete the certification, and submit all required documents to DOE electronically.
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.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has tentatively 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 for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, Executive Order 13132 requires no further action.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 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 section 3(a) and section 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, this 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. DOE's policy statement is also available at
Although this proposed rule, which proposes new energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, it may require annual expenditures of $100 million or more by the private sector. Specifically, the proposed rule would likely result in a final rule that could
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) and (o), this proposed rule would establish energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this proposed rule.
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 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under 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 NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth proposed energy conservation standards for residential furnace fans, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.”
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site at:
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the public meeting. Such persons may hand-deliver requests to speak to the address shown in the
DOE requests persons scheduled to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least one week before the public meeting. DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Program. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking, until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment 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. Additional FER value data that are generated using the DOE residential furnace fans test procedure proposed in the April 2, 2013 SNOPR (78 FR 19606), as well as the product class, measured airflow capacity in the maximum airflow control setting, and technology options of the model for which each FER value is calculated.
2. DOE's methodology for accounting for the relationship between FER and airflow capacity, and the resulting efficiency levels that are represented by equations for FER as a function of airflow capacity. (See Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD)
3. The reasonableness of the values that DOE used to characterize the rebound effect with higher-efficiency residential furnace fans.
4. DOE's estimate of the base-case efficiency distribution of residential furnace fans in 2018.
5. The long-term market penetration of higher-efficiency residential furnace fans.
6. DOE performed physical teardowns on a selection of units currently on the market. From the bills of materials and cost model developed using this teardown data, DOE calculated an estimate of the manufacturer production cost for each covered product class in the engineering analysis. DOE also developed estimates of the costs for components that affect energy consumption, namely those it considered as design options. These estimates were obtained from a combination of sources, including publicly available prices from vendors and confidential estimates provided by manufacturers. These price data are aggregated for use in the engineering analysis. DOE seeks comment and data regarding the manufacturer production costs for furnace fan equipment and components and the technological feasibility of applying technologies identified in the engineering analysis to meet the proposed standards.
7. To estimate the impact on shipments of the price increase for the considered efficiency levels, DOE used the relative price elasticity approach that was applied in the 2011 energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential furnaces. DOE welcomes stakeholder input and estimates on the effect of amended standards on future furnace fan equipment shipments. DOE also welcomes input and data on the demand elasticity estimates used in the analysis.
8. DOE requests comment on whether there are features or attributes of the more energy-efficient furnace fans that manufacturers would produce to meet the standards in this proposed rule that might affect how they would be used by consumers. DOE requests comment specifically on how any such effects should be weighed in the choice of standards for furnace fans for the final rule.
9. For this rulemaking, DOE analyzed the effects of this proposal assuming that the furnace fans would be available to purchase for 30 years, and it undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years rather than 30 years of product shipments. The choice of a 30-year period of shipments is consistent with the DOE analysis for other products and commercial equipment. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards. We are seeking input, information and data on whether there are ways to refine the analytic timeline further.
10. DOE defines lifetime as the age at which residential furnace fan equipment is retired from service. DOE modeled furnace fan lifetime based on the distribution of furnace lifetimes developed for the recent energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential furnaces. DOE welcomes further input on the average equipment lifetimes for the LCC analysis and NIA.
11. DOE solicits comment on the application of the new SCC values used to determine the social benefits of CO
12. The agency also seeks input on the cumulative regulatory burden that may be imposed on industry either from recently implemented rulemakings for these products or other rulemakings that affect the same industry.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial equipment, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
The addition reads as follows:
(i) * * *
(5) [Reserved]
(6) Residential furnace fans, [date five years after publication of the final rule].
(a) [Reserved]
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13) of this part, a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The fan energy rating (FER) in watts per thousand cubic feet per minute (W/1000 cfm); the calculated maximum airflow at the reference system external static pressure (ESP) in cubic feet per minute (cfm); the control system configuration for achieving the heating and constant-circulation airflow-control settings required for determining FER as specified in the furnace fan test procedure (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix AA); the measured steady-state gas, oil, or electric heat input rate (Q
42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(y)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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 Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 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: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A. The
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. 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.