Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Indian Health Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Justice Programs Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD–700–1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the manufacturer has determined that some completion centers used the heater/brake monitoring unit (HBMU) logic circuit to control the line voltage of the drain mast heaters. Since the drain mast heaters are connected in parallel with the number 2 pitot static (PS) probe heater circuit, a number 2 PS probe heater failure may not be detected by the fault monitoring capabilities of the HBMU. This AD requires modification of the air data probes and sensors. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unannunciated failure of two PS probe heaters, which could affect controllability of the airplane in icing conditions.
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE–172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228–7301; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD–700–1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–32, dated December 13, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The aeroplane manufacturer has determined that some completion centers used the Heater/Brake Monitoring Unit (HBMU) logic circuit to control the line voltage of the drain mast heaters. This same logic circuit is also used to control the line voltage of the number 2 pitot static (PS) probe heater. Since the drain mast heaters are connected in parallel with the number 2 PS probe heater circuit, a number 2 PS probe heater failure may not be detected by the fault monitoring capabilities of the HBMU.
The unannunciated failure of two PS probe heaters could adversely affect the aeroplane's flight characteristics in icing conditions.
This [Canadian] AD mandates a modification to the existing drain mast heater wiring to correct the fault-monitoring capabilities of the HBMU and eliminate the potential dormant failure of the number 2 PS probe heater.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 55660, September 11, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 55660, September 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 55660, September 11, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 32 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD–700–1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with any electrical wiring heater current/brake temperature monitor unit (HBMU) installed in accordance with any FAA supplemental type certificate specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700–30–021, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2012.
(2) For airplanes on which the applicable service request for product support action (SRPSA) specified in table 3 and table 4 of paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700–30–021, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2012, has been incorporated, the requirements of this AD have been met.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.
This AD was prompted by a report that the manufacturer has determined that some completion centers used the HBMU logic circuit to control the line voltage of the drain mast heaters. This same logic circuit is also used to control the line voltage of the number 2 pitot static (PS) probe heater. Since the drain mast heaters are connected in parallel with the number 2 PS probe heater circuit, a number 2 PS probe heater failure may not be detected by the fault monitoring capabilities of the HBMU. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unannunciated failure of two PS probe heaters, which could affect controllability of the airplane in icing conditions.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 800 flight hours or 15 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Modify the air data probes and sensors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700–30–021, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 700–30–021, dated August 28, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–32, dated December 13, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700–30–021, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 helicopters. This AD requires visually inspecting the main rotor swashplate outer ring (outer ring) for a crack and replacing that outer ring if a crack exists. This AD is prompted by two cases of cracks caused by fatigue on certain outer rings. These actions are intended to prevent the failure of the outer ring, which would lead to loss of main rotor blade pitch control and subsequently loss of helicopter control.
This AD becomes effective March 12, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of March 12, 2014.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 28, 2014.
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
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.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013–0152–E, dated July 17, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB412 helicopter. EASA advises
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
AgustaWestland S.p.A. issued Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 412–134 on July 15, 2013 (BT), to warn that two cases of cracking in the outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, have been reported, both attributed to fatigue failure. The BT calls for visually inspecting the outer ring for a crack with a 5X magnifying glass and a bright light. The BT added that the inspection must occur within 5 flight hours from when the BT was issued and within intervals of 25 flight hours thereafter until the outer ring is replaced. The deadline to replace the outer ring with outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–117, is 300 flight hours or no later than April 15, 2014, whichever comes first. Outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, was not to be used after April 15, 2014, the BT stated.
This AD requires:
• Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, visually inspecting the swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, for cracks, using a 5X magnifying glass and a bright light. If a crack exists, before further flight, removing the swashplate outer ring from service.
• Within 300 hours TIS or 8 months, whichever occurs first, removing the swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, from service.
• Not installing a swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, on any helicopter.
This AD prohibits installation of a swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, while the EASA AD allows installation of this part under certain conditions.
There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.
There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. Operators.
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 unnecessary because there are none of these products on the U.S. Registry 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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 helicopters with a swashplate outer ring part number (P/N) 412–010–407–105 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the main rotor swashplate outer ring. This condition could result in the loss of main rotor blade pitch control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective March 12, 2014.
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) Within 5 hours time in service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, visually inspect the swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, for a crack, using a 5X or higher power magnifying glass and a bright light and referring to Figures 1 and 2 in AgustaWestland S.p.A. Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 412–134, dated July 15, 2013. If a crack exists, before further flight, remove the swashplate outer ring from service.
(2) Within 300 hours TIS or 8 months, whichever occurs first, remove the swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, from service.
(3) Do not install a swashplate outer ring, P/N 412–010–407–105, on any helicopter.
(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 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013–0152–E, dated July 17, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor Mast/Swashplate.
(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) AgustaWestland S.p.A. Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 412–134, dated July 15, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For AgustaWestland service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland, 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
(4) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the 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:
Aircraft Certification Service.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by three reports of cracking in the rear pressure bulkhead (RPBH) web. This AD requires inspecting the RPBH web for cracking, and repairing if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the RPBH web, which could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and possible injury to the occupants.
This AD becomes effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012–0219, dated October 19, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Three reports have been received of a crack in the rear pressure bulkhead (RPBH) web, just below the horizontal beam XI between buttock lines BL425L and BL425R, in the centre web bay below the pressure relief valves.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in an exponential crack growth rate, possibly leading to failure of the affected RPBH web, resulting in in-flight decompression of the aeroplane and possible injury to occupants.
A repetitive inspection requirement has been published in issue 10 of Fokker Services [Airworthiness Limitations Section] ALS Report SE–623 under task number 534106–00–05. The threshold to start this ALS-task is 30,000 [total] flight cycles (FC). However, it is known that many aeroplanes have already exceeded this threshold.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection [detailed visual or high frequency eddy current inspection] of the affected RPBH web for cracks and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair. The repair can also be applied at any time as a modification, thereby exempting the aeroplane from (further) repetitive ALS task 534106–00–05 inspections.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 52465, August 23, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 52465, August 23, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 52465, August 23, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–120, dated May 15, 2012.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by three reports of cracking in the rear pressure bulkhead (RPBH) web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the RPBH web, which could result in in-flight decompression of the airplane and possible injury to the occupants.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the rear side of the RPBH web below beam XI between buttock line (BL) 425L and BL 425R, in accordance with PART 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–120, dated May 15, 2012.
(2) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the forward side of the RPBH web below beam XI between BL 425L and BL 425R, in accordance with PART 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–120, dated May 15, 2012.
Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100.176, dated May 15, 2012; and AOF100.178, dated September 10, 2012; provide additional information concerning the subject addressed by this AD.
(1) If any cracking is found during the inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–121, dated May 15, 2012.
(2) For any airplane inspected as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and no cracking was found: Within 12 months after that inspection, do the HFEC inspection specified in PART 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–120, dated May 15, 2012. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–121, dated May 15, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2012–0219, dated October 19, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–120, dated May 15, 2012.
(ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100–53–121, dated May 15, 2012.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 (0)88–6280–111; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes modified by particular supplemental type certificates (STCs). This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found during inspections of the in-flight entertainment system radome assembly. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracks in the radome assembly, and replacement of the radome if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the in-flight entertainment system radome assembly, which could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, and consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1, 2014.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Live TV, 8900 Hangar Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; phone: 407–812–2600; fax: 407–812–2526; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Barry Culler, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404–474–5546; fax: 404–474–5605; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain the Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes modified by particular supplemental type certificates (STCs). The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it does not have sufficient information regarding the supplemental type certificates (STCs) referenced in the NPRM (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013); therefore, it has no comment.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per STC ST00830SE (
United Air Lines (UAL) requested that the FAA and Live TV re-evaluate the need for the reporting requirement proposed in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013), and remove this proposed requirement. UAL questioned why operators would be required to fill out the service bulletin reporting form provided in Live TV Service Bulletin B737–53–0011, dated March 29, 2013, mentioned in paragraph (h) of the NPRM, and send it to Live TV every time cracking is found on a radome. UAL stated that any radome with cracking would be sent back to the manufacturer with an unserviceable tag attached and that the information on the tag would be the same information requested on the service bulletin reporting form. UAL also noted that the information requested on the reporting form is redundant because the reporting form states that when cracking is found on a radome, the technician has to record his or her name, service work order, and location of accomplishment.
We do not agree to remove the reporting requirement from this final rule. For this AD, Live TV is the STC design approval holder (DAH) and is gathering information reported by operators and reporting this information to the FAA. There is no regulatory requirement for an operator to return a part to a manufacturer. Regarding this final rule, we agree that an operator may voluntarily provide a cracked radome to Live TV, the STC DAH; however, if a reporting requirement was not mandated by this AD, an operator might elect to repair a cracked radome itself, or send it to another facility for repair, instead of sending it to Live TV, so the information requested in the reporting requirement might not be shared with Live TV. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
UAL noted that the NPRM (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013) proposed to require operators to record and report the serial number of any cracked radome. UAL stated that numerous times it has discovered that the radome data plate, which has the serial number specified on it, is missing. UAL commented that it can be difficult to use an operator's record keeping system to determine the serial number of a radome because the radome could have been rotated among airplanes. UAL requested guidance regarding what to do if the data plate is missing from a radome.
We agree that the serial number is an important piece of information for the reporting requirement of this final rule. However, this final rule does not require an operator to identify the radome's serial number prior to inspection. The reporting requirement is only required if cracking is found in the radome during the inspection. If cracking is found during the inspection an operator has 30 days to provide the report. This timeframe should be sufficient for operators to identify the radome's serial number by looking at the data plate or the searching the operator's tracking system. The reporting requirement is meant to help Live TV and the FAA trace back to the fabrication records for potential causes of cracking in the radome.
Based on review and consideration during Weibull Analysis, we believe that rotating radomes among airplanes is not a common occurrence. It is ultimately the operator's responsibility to maintain its airplane configurations and subsequently provide the required serial number information. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 47233, August 5, 2013).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, –800, –900, and –900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, with Live TV radomes having part number 5063–100–V3 or 5063–101–V2 and a serial number in the range of 001 through 497 inclusive, and modified by the applicable supplemental type certificate (STC) identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) ST00284BO (
(2) ST02887AT (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found during inspections of the radome assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the in-flight entertainment system radome assembly, which could result in the radome (or pieces) separating from the airplane and striking the tail, and consequently reducing the controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 1,250 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for cracks of the radome assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Live TV Service Bulletin B737–53–0011, dated March 29, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,250 flight hours. If any crack is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, replace the radome, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Live TV Service Bulletin B737–53–0011, dated March 29, 2013.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, submit a report of the findings to Live TV, 8900 Hangar Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; phone: 407–812–2600; fax: 407–812–2526; email
(1) If the inspection was accomplished on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was accomplished before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 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 unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (l) of this AD.
(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) 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 Barry Culler, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404–474–5546; fax: 404–474–5605; 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) Live TV Service Bulletin B737–53–0011, dated March 29, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Live TV, 8900 Hangar Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32827; phone: 407–812–2600; fax: 407–812–2526; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for B–N Group Ltd. Models BN–2, BN–2A, BN–2A–2, BN–2A–3, BN–2A–6, BN–2A–8, BN–2A–9, BN–2A–20, BN–2A–21, BN–2A–26, BN–2A–27, BN–2B–20, BN–2B–21, BN–2B–26, BN–2B–27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III–2, and BN2A MK. III–3 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as damage of the cable sliding end assembly and installation of the incorrect end fitting on engine control cable assemblies. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House,
Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to B–N Group Ltd. Models BN–2, BN–2A, BN–2A–2, BN–2A–3, BN–2A–6, BN–2A–8, BN–2A–9, BN–2A–20, BN–2A–21, BN–2A–26, BN–2A–27, BN–2B–20, BN–2B–21, BN–2B–26, BN–2B–27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III–2, and BN2A MK. III–3 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited has been made aware of two occurrences where a failure of engine control cable assemblies has caused engine control difficulties. In both reported cases, the cable sliding end assemblies were in poor condition and in both cases, an incorrect end-fitting was installed which may have contributed to the failures.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced engine control, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Britten-Norman Aircraft have issued Service Bulletin (SB) 334 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection and functional test of the engine control cables and, depending on findings, replacement of the cables.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 64894, October 30, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 64894, October 30, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 64894, October 30, 2013).
We estimate that this AD will affect 101 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $8,585, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $4,800 (4 per airplane), for a cost of $5,650 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to B–N Group Ltd. Models BN–2, BN–2A, BN–2A–2, BN–2A–3, BN–2A–
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 76: Engine Controls.
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 damage of the cable sliding end assembly and installation of the incorrect end fitting on engine control cable assemblies. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of the cable sliding end assembly (cracking, distortion, corrosion) and incorrect end fittings on the engine control assemblies, which could lead to reduced engine control with consequent loss of control.
Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 6 months after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), do a one-time inspection of the engine control cable assemblies, part number (P/N) 137835, P/N 172449–1, P/N 17250, and P/N 172451, and surrounding areas for damage (cracking, distortion, corrosion) and correct cable end-fitting and to assure the wire locking is intact following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013.
(2) If no discrepancies are found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, inspect the control linkages for proper adjustment and, before further flight, make any necessary changes following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013.
(3) If any discrepancies are found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and/or the control linkages cannot be properly adjusted as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the engine control cable assembly with a serviceable unit following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013.
(4) After April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), do not install on any airplane engine control cable assemblies, part number (P/N) 137835, P/N 172449–1, P/N 17250, and P/N 172451, unless they are new or have been inspected as required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD and found free of any discrepancies and have proper adjustment.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2013–0215, dated September 16, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email:
(4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Model T67M260 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracked horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Slingsby Advanced Composites, Ings Lane, Kirbymoorside, York, YO62 6EZ, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 (0) 1751 432474; fax +44 (0) 1751 433016, Internet:
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Model T67M260 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Several cases have been reported of cracked horizontal stabiliser attachment brackets on Slingsby T67 aeroplanes.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to separation of the horizontal stabiliser and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these reports, Slingsby issued Service Bulletin (SB) 179 to provide instructions for repetitive inspections. The CAA UK, the State of Design authority at the time, issued AD 001–12–2002,which was later superseded by AD G–2005–0004 (EASA approval 2005–564) to require repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, replacement of the affected brackets.
Since that AD was issued, Slingsby published SB 179 issue 4, which removed the Model T67M260–T3A from the Applicability (all aeroplanes of this Model are confirmed to have been scrapped) and clarified that replacement of the affected aluminum brackets with titanium brackets (Slingsby Modification M988A or B) constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of CAA UK AD G–2005–0004, which is superseded, removes the Model T67M260–T3A from the Applicability and confirms that installing titanium brackets constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 69785, November 21, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69785, November 21, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69785, November 21, 2013).
We estimate that this AD will affect 11 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic inspection of the aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $7,250 (for all four titanium horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets), for a cost of $7,930 per product, or parts costing $9,557 (for all four aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets), for a cost of $10,237. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Slingsby Aviation Ltd. Model T67M260 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.
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 cracked horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets. We are issuing this AD to prevent separation of the horizontal stabilizer, which could result in loss of control.
Unless already done, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) or at the next annual inspection after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, inspect the aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets for cracks. Do the inspections following the ACTION instructions in Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd. Service Bulletin S.B. No: 179, Issue 4, dated March 15, 2007.
(2) If any cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the cracked bracket with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following the ACTION instructions in Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd. Service Bulletin S.B. No: 179, Issue 4, dated March 15, 2007. If a serviceable aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment bracket is used as a replacement part, repetitively inspect as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(3) To terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, all four aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets must be replaced with titanium horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets.
(4) After installing titanium horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets, installing aluminum horizontal stabilizer attachment brackets is prohibited.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012–0169, dated August 31, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Slingsby Advanced Composites Ltd. Service Bulletin S.B. No: 179, Issue 4, dated March 15, 2007.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Slingsby Aviation Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact Slingsby Advanced Composites, Ings Lane, Kirbymoorside, York, YO62 6EZ, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 (0) 1751 432474; fax +44 (0) 1751 433016, Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(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 all Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as broken control column attachment bolts. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 25, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 25, 2014.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 11, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4123; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/15, dated January 29, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The MCAI states:
This emergency AD with effective date 30 January 2014 is prompted by reports of finding broken control column attachment bolts on two 750 XL aircraft.
Investigation revealed the bolt failures may be due to possible over-tightening of the control column attachment bolt to reduce control column play in the pivot fork (socket). Pacific Aerospace subsequently issued MSP PACSB/XL/070 issue 1, dated 24 January 24, 2014 to replace affected bolts, washers and nuts within the next 10 hours TIS, and to caution operators and maintainers that over-tightening may reduce the life of the bolt. This AD mandates the requirements in PACSB/XL/070 to prevent failure of the control column attachment bolt which could result in control column detachment and loss of aircraft control.
Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/070, Issue 1, dated January 24, 2014. 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the control column attachment bolt could result in control column detachment, which could cause loss of control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 17 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $100 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,867.50, or $227.50 per product.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 25, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as broken control column attachment bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the control column attachment bolt, which could result in control column detachment and cause loss of control.
Unless already done, within the next 10 hours time-in-service after February 25, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), replace the left hand and the right hand control column attachment bolts following the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/070, Issue 1, dated January 24, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/750XL/15, dated January 29, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/070, Issue 1, dated January 24, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Hamilton Airport, Private Bag 3027 Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 843 6144; fax: +64 7 843 6134; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A Model P–180 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient clearance between one of the horizontal stabilizer end ribs and the corresponding elevator horn. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A—Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4–16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; email:
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A Model P–180 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Insufficient clearance between one of the horizontal stabilizer end rib and the corresponding elevator horn was found on an in-service aeroplane.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to interference between the elevator and horizontal stabilizer surfaces, resulting in restricted elevator control and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) issued Service Bulletin (SB) 80–0381 to provide inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires accomplishment of a one-time measurement of the actual clearance between the elevator horn and the horizontal stabilizer tip rib, and depending on findings, restoration of the required minimum clearance value. This AD also requires reporting of the inspection result to PAI.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 69600, November 20, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69600, November 20, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69600, November 20, 2013).
We estimate that this AD will affect 112 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $9,520, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $50, for a cost of $475 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A Model P–180 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1231, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by 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 insufficient clearance between one of the horizontal stabilizer end ribs and the corresponding elevator horn. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient clearance between one of the horizontal stabilizer end rib and the corresponding elevator horn, which could result in interference between the elevator and horizontal stabilizer surfaces, consequently resulting in restricted elevator control and reduced control of the airplane.
Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 200 hours time-in service (TIS) after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 12 months after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, measure the clearances between the horns of the elevator and the end ribs of the horizontal stabilizer (HS) on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides following Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No.: 80–0381, Rev. 0, dated May 2, 2013.
(2) If the clearance is less than 5 mm on the HS LH or RH side during the measurement as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, rework the affected elevator to restore the required minimum clearance between the horn of the elevator and the end rib of the horizontal stabilizer following Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No.: 80–0381, Rev. 0, dated May 2, 2013.
(3) Within 30 days after accomplishment of the measurement as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, report the results to Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A. following Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No.: 80–0381, Rev. 0, dated May 2, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013–0239, dated September 30, 2013, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No.: 80–0381, Rev. 0, dated May 2, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Piaggio Aero Industries S.P.A service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A—Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi Cibrario, 4 16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228–212 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as main landing gear axle failure caused by initial fatigue cracking and small pre-damage by corrosion. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 1, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49–(0)8153–30–2280; fax: +49–(0)8153–30–3030; Internet:
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4123; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228–212 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
An event of a main landing gear (MLG) axle break during touchdown has been reported. The results of the subsequent technical investigation indicated that improper restoration of corrosion protection was the likely cause of the initial fatigue cracking.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the main landing gear axle, possibly resulting in a runway excursion with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB–228–300, Rev. 1.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the MLG axle and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 69320, November 19, 2013).
We estimate that this AD would affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 160 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $27,200, or $13,600 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 1, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228–212 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
This 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 improper restoration of corrosion protection as the likely cause of initial fatigue cracking of the main landing gear (MLG) axle. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct possible corrosion and cracking of the MLG axle, which could lead to failure of the MLG axle resulting in a runway excursion with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD:
(1) Inspect the MLG axle following the Accomplishment Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB–228–300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, at the time specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) If, as of April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), the main landing gear (MLG) has 6,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS) since new or is 10 years old or is more than 10 years old: Within the next 400 hours TIS after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(ii) If, as of April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), the MLG has less than 6,000 hours TIS since new or is between 5 to 10 years old: Before or upon accumulating 6,400 hours TIS or within 6 months after April 1, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
(2) If, during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any discrepancies are found outside the limits specified in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB–228–300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, before further flight, make all necessary corrective actions following the Accomplishment Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB–228–300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2013–0209, dated September 10, 2013, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB–228–300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49–(0)8153–30–2280; fax: +49–(0)8153–30–3030; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
(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 adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of chaffing, arcing, and burning damage to the control cabin overhead wiring and ducting with smoke and fire caused by metal clamps installed on certain hoses. This AD requires inspecting for the presence of metal clamps, replacing metal clamps installed on the hoses to the air conditioning temperature sensor, gasper air outlet, and diffuser on the left side of the control cabin with plastic tie straps, and inspecting for and repairing damaged wire bundles. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to wire bundles, which could cause electrical arcing that could result in a fire or smoke in the control cabin of the airplane.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 1, 2014.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6418; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal (78 FR 59304, September 26, 2013) and the FAA's response to that comment.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per STC ST01219SE (
We have re-designated paragraph (c) of the NPRM (78 FR 59304, September 26, 2013) as paragraph (c)(1) in this final rule and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 59304, September 26, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 59304, September 26, 2013).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 426 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. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 1, 2014.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air conditioning.
This AD was prompted by reports of chaffing, arcing, and burning damage to the control cabin overhead wiring and ducting with smoke and fire caused by metal clamps installed on certain hoses. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to wire bundles, which could cause electrical arcing that could result in a fire or smoke in the control cabin of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in Groups 1 and 2 in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a general visual inspection to determine if any metal clamp is installed on the hoses to the air conditioning temperature sensor, gasper air outlet, and diffuser on the left side of the control cabin at station (STA) 259.5, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012. If any metal clamp is found installed, before further flight, replace each metal clamp with a plastic tie strap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012.
(2) Do a general visual inspection for damage to the adjacent wire bundles and repair any damaged wire bundles, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012. Do all applicable repairs before further flight.
For airplanes identified in Group 3 in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace any metal clamp installed on the hoses to the air conditioning temperature sensor, gasper air outlet, and diffuser on the left side of the control cabin at STA 259.5, and inspect adjacent wire bundles and repair any damage, before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a metal clamp on the hoses to the air conditioning temperature sensor, gasper air outlet, and the diffuser on the left side of the control cabin at STA 259.5.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6418; 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 Service Bulletin 737–21–1186, dated April 17, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 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:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; denial of request for a stay of effective date and for a hearing; response to objections; confirmation of effective date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is responding to objections and is denying requests that it received for a hearing on the final rule that appeared in the
Effective date of final rule published in the
Teresa A. Croce, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1281.
In a notice published in the
Section 409(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(f)(1)) provides that, within 30 days after publication of an order relating to a food additive regulation, any person adversely affected by such order may file objections, “specifying with particularity the provisions of the order deemed objectionable, stating reasonable grounds therefor, and requesting a public hearing upon such objections.”
Under 21 CFR 171.110 of the food additive regulations, objections and requests for a hearing are governed by part 12 (21 CFR part 12) of FDA's regulations. Under § 12.22(a), each objection must meet the following conditions: (1) Must be submitted on or before the 30th day after the date of publication of the final rule; (2) must be separately numbered; (3) must specify with particularity the provision of the regulation or proposed order objected to; (4) must specifically state each objection on which a hearing is requested; failure to request a hearing on an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection; and (5) must include a detailed description and analysis of the factual information to be presented in support of the objection if a hearing is requested; failure to include a description and analysis for an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection.
Following publication of the final rule permitting the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach for control of food-borne pathogens and extension of shelf life, we received numerous submissions with objections to the rule within the 30-day objection period. The majority of these submissions were form letters expressing concern regarding one or more of the following issues: (1) Labeling of produce being irradiated and (2) potential vitamin depletion resulting from irradiation. Many of the form letters also expressed general opposition to the final rule, or objected to the rule based on issues that are outside the rule's scope such as the regulation and management of the meat industry, the number of inspectors currently available to perform inspections, and the proximity of cattle farms to produce farms. Although most of these letters requested a hearing, no evidence was identified in support of any of these objections that could be considered in an evidentiary hearing (§ 12.22(a)(5)). Therefore, these objections do not justify a hearing.
There were two submissions raising specific objections. One was a letter from the Center for Food Safety (CFS) (letter to Docket No. FDA–1999–F–2405; September 17, 2008) and the second was a letter from Food & Water Watch (FWW) (letter to Docket No. FDA–1999–F–2405; September 22, 2008). The letter from CFS sought revocation of the final rule pertaining to two areas, which were enumerated as five specific objections. CFS requested a hearing on the issues
Specific criteria for deciding whether to grant or deny a request for a hearing are set out in § 12.24(b). Under that regulation, a hearing will be granted if the material submitted by the requester shows, among other things, the following: (1) There is a genuine and substantial factual issue for resolution at a hearing; a hearing will not be granted on issues of policy or law; (2) the factual issue can be resolved by available and specifically identified reliable evidence; a hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions; (3) the data and information submitted, if established at a hearing, would be adequate to justify resolution of the factual issue in the way sought by the requester; a hearing will be denied if the data and information submitted are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate; and (4) resolution of the factual issue in the way sought by the person is adequate to justify the action requested; a hearing will not be granted on factual issues that are not determinative with respect to the action requested (e.g., if the action would be the same even if the factual issue were resolved in the way sought).
A party seeking a hearing is required to meet a “threshold burden of tendering evidence suggesting the need for a hearing” (
A hearing request must not only contain evidence, but that evidence should raise a material issue of fact “concerning which a meaningful hearing might be held” (
Even if the objections raise material issues of fact, we need not grant a hearing if those same issues were adequately raised and considered in an earlier proceeding. Once an issue has been so raised and considered, a party is estopped from raising that same issue in a later proceeding without new evidence. The various judicial doctrines dealing with finality, such as collateral estoppel, can be validly applied to the administrative process (see
In summary, a hearing request must present sufficient credible evidence to raise a material issue of fact, and the evidence must be adequate to resolve the issue as requested and to justify the action requested.
The letter from CFS contains five numbered objections with requests for a hearing on each of them, and also appears to have two broad objections. FWW's letter agrees with all objections presented by CFS and presents one additional objection; they request a hearing and stay of effective date on each objection. We address CFS' two broad objections first, followed by the specific objections, as well as the evidence and information filed in support of each, comparing each objection and the information submitted in support of it to the standards for granting a hearing in § 12.24(b).
Although CFS' letter was formatted as five numbered objections with requests for a hearing on each, CFS appears to have two broad objections to the final rule providing for the safe use of ionizing radiation for control of food-borne pathogens and extension of shelf life in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach. In brief, CFS claims that: (1) We have improperly relied on studies in other fruits and vegetables and (2) we have improperly relied on studies at doses below 4.0 kGy. CFS appears to raise these objections to attempt to call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and ultimately our determination that the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe.
We disagree that we have improperly relied on studies in other fruits and vegetables. We have consistently taken the position that various scientifically validated types of data may properly support a safety determination for a proposed use of a food additive (see 21 CFR 170.20(a)). Further, we have consistently taken the position that data obtained from specific foods irradiated under specific conditions may be extrapolated and generalized to draw conclusions regarding the safety of foods of a similar type irradiated under related conditions (see 62 FR 64107 at 64110; December 3, 1997, and 70 FR 48057 at 48059; August 16, 2005). Other scientific bodies have used this approach as well. As explained in our final rule permitting the irradiation of molluscan shellfish (70 FR 48057 at 48058), the World Health Organization, in its review of the safety data on irradiated food, found that safety data on one food type can be extrapolated to other foods of similar composition and that individual studies of irradiated foods can be integrated into one database (Ref. 1). In the fresh lettuce and fresh spinach final rule, we concluded that the body of data and information we considered in our review demonstrated the safety of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach irradiated up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy. CFS' suggestion that such information is not
We also disagree that we improperly relied on studies at doses below 4.0 kGy. In analyzing the nutritional adequacy of irradiated fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, we evaluated the totality of evidence, which included studies of plant-based foods irradiated at a wide range of doses (i.e., doses above and below 4.0 kGy), information about the susceptibility of vitamins in lettuce and spinach to irradiation, information about the susceptibility of vitamins in plant matrices in general to irradiation, and estimates of the significance of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach as sources of these vitamins. For the assessment of the significance of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach as sources of vitamins, we considered the levels of the vitamins present in food, published information about the relative contribution of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach to the total dietary intake of these vitamins, and published studies and reviews summarizing the limited bioavailability of certain vitamins from green leafy vegetables. Importantly, we noted that folate, provitamin A carotenoids, and vitamin K all have limited bioavailability from green leafy vegetables; hence the contribution of these foods to overall intake of these vitamins is diminished, despite the presence of the vitamins in high amounts in foods such as spinach (Ref. 2).
We considered studies performed at doses ranging from 0.5 kGy to 56 kGy to ascertain the relative amount of vitamin loss at those doses. Specifically, we assessed studies performed at doses above 4.0 kGy for folate, provitamin A carotenoids, vitamin K, and vitamin C. As such, we did not rely solely on studies conducted below 4.0 kGy to perform the nutritional assessment; rather we considered all available data pertaining to potential nutrient loss for those vitamins. The available data included information on the levels of vitamins following treatment with doses below 4.0 kGy, information on the levels of vitamins following treatment with doses above 4.0 kGy, information on the limited bioavailability of certain vitamins and provitamins from green leafy vegetables, and information pertaining to the relative contribution of these sources to the total dietary intake of individual vitamins. Our assessment of the available data does not provide reason for a safety concern regarding potential vitamin loss from irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy. CFS provided no information to support its assertions that our reliance on studies in other fruits and vegetables and studies performed at doses below 4.0 kGy would call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and ultimately our determination that irradiated fresh lettuce and fresh spinach at 4.0 kGy is safe. A hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)). Therefore, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing based on this objection.
The first objection raised by CFS contends that FDA “fails to determine the magnitude of nutrient losses to be expected from irradiation of fresh spinach or iceberg lettuce at or near the upper limit approved in the rule: 4 kGy.” They expound upon this objection by asserting that the majority of the studies cited in our nutrition memorandum (Ref. 2) were performed at doses below 2 kGy and on fruits and vegetables other than fresh spinach and fresh lettuce. The objection includes CFS' assertions regarding the following “nutrients”: Carotenoids/vitamin A,
CFS further contends that we failed to determine the magnitude of nutrient losses to be expected from irradiating fresh spinach and fresh lettuce at or near the petitioned maximum dose because we did not address the synergistic effects of irradiation and heating. According to CFS, we should have considered that “irradiation-induced nutrient losses will be superadded to those from other industrial or home food processing methods.” CFS' assertion that we failed to determine the magnitude of nutrient losses at or near the petitioned maximum dose ultimately attempts to call into question our determination that the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe.
Contrary to CFS' contention and, as demonstrated in our nutrition memorandum (Ref. 2), we evaluated both the extent of nutrient loss and the nutritional importance of any such losses resulting from irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach at doses up to 4.0 kGy. Our review of a large body of data relevant to the nutritional adequacy and wholesomeness of irradiated foods has demonstrated that irradiation does not significantly alter the macronutrients (i.e., proteins, fats, and carbohydrates) of the food at the petitioned doses. However, it has been shown that some vitamins are susceptible to irradiation. The susceptibility of a vitamin to irradiation depends on factors such as the chemical structure of the vitamin, the conditions of processing, the conditions and duration of storage, and the composition of food. To determine whether or not partial vitamin loss is significant, it is essential to consider the relative contribution of the vitamin from the irradiated food to the total dietary intake of the vitamin and the sensitivity of that vitamin to irradiation.
Therefore, our analysis focused primarily on vitamins that are present in relatively high amounts in fresh lettuce and/or fresh spinach, which were identified using the criteria for nutrient content claims (§ 101.54 (21 CFR 101.54)),
In the analysis specific to irradiation-induced loss of provitamin A, CFS objects to the use of six studies, five of which did not involve the irradiation of fresh lettuce or fresh spinach. We have reviewed a large body of data relevant to the safety of irradiated foods.
Furthermore, vitamin A exists in food sources in two different forms: (1) Preformed vitamin A (retinol) and (2) provitamin A (carotenoids).
Additionally, CFS asserts that there is “no discussion of the apparent discrepancy between no carotenoid loss in carrots at 2 kGy and `low to moderate losses in beta and alpha-carotene' * * * in carrots irradiated at less than half that dose, 0.8 kGy.”
The nutritional significance of provitamin A carotenoids is that provitamin A carotenoids, including alpha and beta-carotenes, are precursors of vitamin A. Even at the highest observed losses in the cited studies (28 percent for alpha-carotene), one would not expect substantive losses of vitamin A in the total diet, in part due to inefficient conversion of alpha-carotene to retinol and the limited bioavailability of alpha-carotene from plant sources. In recognition of these limitations, the IOM has established a retinol activity equivalence of 24 micrograms of alpha-carotene (from food) to 1 microgram of retinol (meaning 24 micrograms of alpha-carotene in carrots yield only 1 microgram of retinol in the body). In contrast, the IOM estimates that 12 micrograms of food-borne beta-carotene yield one microgram of retinol in the body. Despite the relatively high concentration of beta-carotene in spinach, the bioavailability of beta-carotene from green leafy vegetables is generally considered to be low relative to other food sources of beta-carotene (even lower than raw carrot) due to inhibitory effects of the food matrix (i.e., the components of the food) on carotenoid release from food. Release of the carotenoids from the food matrix is a step that precedes the incorporation of carotenoids into mixed lipid micelles and their subsequent absorption (Refs. 4 and 10). This topic has been addressed in section IV.A and in an extensive review by the IOM (Ref. 3). Considering the limited bioavailability of provitamin A carotenoids from fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, the limited contribution
Further, CFS asserts that we failed to determine the magnitude of nutrient losses from irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach because the discussion of carotenoids was limited to total carotenoid levels as opposed to analyzing specific carotenoids with “particular nutritional relevance,” such as lutein and zeaxanthin. To support this objection, CFS cites a study performed by Semba and Dagnelie (Ref. 11), that, according to CFS, demonstrates the nutritional relevance of lutein and zeaxanthin because “[l]ow dietary intake and plasma levels of lutein and zeaxanthin have been associated with low macular pigment density and increased risk of age-related macular degeneration, and on this basis these carotenoids have been considered good candidates for designation as a [sic] `conditionally essential' nutrients.” CFS fails to note that the same journal article states that these carotenoids “
Additionally, in the most recently published report from the IOM on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), which updated recommendations for the intake of vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and discussed carotenoids, the IOM stated: “[a] large body of observational epidemiological evidence suggests that higher blood concentrations of β-carotene and other carotenoids obtained from foods are associated with lower risk of several chronic diseases. This evidence, although consistent, cannot be used to establish a requirement for β-carotene or carotenoid intake because the observed effects may be due to other substances found in carotenoid-rich food, or to other behavioral correlates of increased fruit and vegetable consumption * * * [a]lthough no DRIs are proposed for β-carotene or other carotenoids at the present time, existing recommendations for increased consumption of carotenoid-rich fruits and vegetables are supported . . .” (Ref. 4).
After reviewing the relevant scientific studies, the IOM did not establish a requirement for carotenoid intake; therefore, unless the carotenoids contributed to vitamin A levels in the diet, we did not analyze specific carotenoids. For these reasons, there was no evidence that individual carotenoids needed to be analyzed when we made our safety decision on irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach at the petitioned doses. Accordingly, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
CFS offers three arguments to support their view that we erroneously concluded that irradiation-induced folate loss in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach is not nutritionally significant. First, CFS asserts that we did not consider any studies of irradiation-induced folate losses in iceberg lettuce. Second, CFS asserts that only one of the cited studies pertained specifically to fresh spinach. Third, CFS contends that we failed to discuss certain results from the study performed by Müller and Diehl (Ref. 12).
First, CFS asserts that “though iceberg lettuce contains considerably less folate than spinach * * *, lettuces as a group supply a larger percentage of folate than the spinach/greens groups to the average American diet,” and therefore we should have considered studies of irradiation-induced folate losses in iceberg lettuce. However, we note that iceberg lettuce is just one leafy vegetable within the category of “lettuces” (which includes Romaine, butterhead, green leaf, etc.); among the lettuces, iceberg lettuce contains the lowest concentration of folate. In our nutrition memorandum (Ref. 2), we explain that iceberg lettuce is not considered to be a “good source” of folate in accordance with § 101.54(c) and that enriched and fortified foods (e.g., cereal grains and grain-based products) make the greatest contribution to folate in the diet. Furthermore, the form of folate used for fortification is more bioavailable than naturally occurring food folates. While we did not provide an analysis for iceberg lettuce, we did analyze the potential folate loss in spinach, which is considered to contain relatively large amounts of folate. We concluded that irradiation of spinach at doses up to 4.0 kGy would not have a significant impact on the dietary intake of folate in the U.S. diet. It follows that iceberg lettuce, which does not meet the criteria for a “good source” of this nutrient, would not have a significant impact on the dietary intake of folate either. Therefore, the information provided by CFS that lettuces “as a group” supply a larger percentage of folate than the spinach/greens group is not sufficient to demonstrate that we should have considered irradiation-induced losses in iceberg lettuce. Accordingly, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
Second, CFS asserts that only one study was presented that considered irradiation-induced folate loss in fresh spinach. While we cited two studies considering folate loss, CFS asserts that only one study is relevant because it was performed in fresh spinach. In the final rule, we explained our position that many scientifically valid types of data may properly support a finding that a proposed use of a food additive is safe. CFS has not provided any evidence that our consideration of studies considering folate loss is inadequate to determine the magnitude of nutrient losses from irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh
Third, CFS contends that our discussion of the study performed by Müller and Diehl (Ref. 12) did not include certain results. CFS asserts that the study reported a 12 percent loss of folate in fresh spinach when irradiated at 2.5 kGy, but we did not discuss the 21 percent loss of folate in fresh spinach when irradiated at 5.0 kGy or the 13 percent loss of folate when dehydrated spinach was irradiated at 10 kGy. The Müller and Diehl study was included in the petition and was analyzed by FDA when we made our safety assessment. We acknowledge that a greater loss of folate was shown when fresh spinach was irradiated at a higher dose (i.e., 5.0 kGy) when compared to the lower dose of 2.5 kGy. The nutrition memorandum cited the 2.5 kGy result, since it was within the range of doses under consideration in the petition and highlighted the general stability of food folate. The 5.0 kGy dose, although greater than the dose under consideration in the petition, still shows that nearly 80 percent of folate is maintained, thus supporting the general stability of this vitamin to moderate doses of irradiation. In our review of the petition, we considered the health implications from folate loss in spinach at the maximum petitioned dose (4.0 kGy), and concluded that such folate loss is not nutritionally significant because: (1) Fresh lettuce and fresh spinach contribute minimally to the dietary intake of folate; and (2) folate is found to be consistently stable to irradiation under various conditions that have been detailed in published studies.
Therefore, the information provided by CFS that a greater loss of folate was shown when fresh spinach was irradiated at a higher dose does not call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and determination that irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe. Accordingly, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
CFS objects to the final rule based on our nutrition memorandum for vitamin K because CFS asserts that: (1) The Knapp and Tappel study (Ref. 13) cited in the nutrition memorandum involved the irradiation of pure vitamin K in an isooctane solution and not in a food matrix; (2) the Richardson et al. study (Ref. 14) cited in the nutrition memorandum involved indirect measurement of vitamin K activity in spinach and other vegetables after freezing, irradiation at 28 or 56 kGy, or heat-processing; (3) we “failed to consider” conflicting results in two studies (Richardson et al. (Ref. 15) and Metta et al. (Ref. 16)) from the same period as the Richardson et al. study (Ref. 14) cited in the nutrition memorandum; and (4) we failed to consider the 2007 study by Hirayama et al. (Ref. 17) that raises “similar questions” regarding the nutritional impact of irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach.
First, CFS contends that the Knapp and Tappel study that involved the irradiation of pure vitamin K in an isooctane solution rather than a food matrix is of “limited value for assessing irradiation-induced loss of Vitamin K in irradiated spinach or iceberg lettuce.” We disagree with CFS' assessment. To the contrary, we maintain that this study establishes vitamin K as one of the least sensitive fat-soluble vitamins to irradiation, and therefore is relevant for assessing irradiation-induced losses. Even though the study was performed in an isooctane solution, the relative sensitivities of the vitamins to irradiation do not change; rather, the food matrix can offer protection to the vitamin, lessening the effects of irradiation because the radiation effects will be distributed to all components of the food, i.e., the principle of mutual protection (Ref. 18). We reviewed this study and found it to be adequate to determine comparative radiosensitivities under uniform conditions for vitamins A, D, E, K, as well as carotene. Therefore, the information provided by CFS that the Knapp and Tappel study involved the irradiation of vitamin K in an isooctane solution rather than a food matrix does not call into question the value of the Knapp and Tappel study in helping us assess the nutritional impact of the final rule. We are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
Second, CFS contends that the Richardson et al. study (Ref. 14) is of limited value because the study “estimated” the vitamin K content through indirect measurement of the prothrombin times of chick plasma, and the study reported “anomalous results.” According to CFS, the authors of the study reported an increase in vitamin K activity in irradiated spinach over time in addition to variability in the values obtained from different assays. CFS cites these findings to support its contention that we erroneously determined the magnitude of vitamin K loss from irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach under the petitioned conditions.
We disagree that the indirect measurement of vitamin K activity in spinach precludes this study from being useful in the assessment of potential nutrient losses. In our review of this study, we considered the prothrombin time measurement in the chick bioassay, even though indirect, to be relevant for assessing vitamin K activity in foods since the chick is sensitive to dietary vitamin K deprivation. Moreover, the prothrombin time measurement is a common parameter for measuring vitamin K status for clinical purposes (Refs. 3 and 19). Furthermore, we acknowledge the variability in the data cited by CFS; however, CFS' objection fails to note that the authors of the study in question concluded that “regardless of the variability in results * * * there was no appreciable loss of vitamin K activity in the foods preserved by any process or when stored for 15 months” (Ref. 14). Variability in results is not grounds for a study to be ignored; important information about general trends may still be gleaned from this study, which consistently found vitamin K activity was not reduced by irradiation relative to frozen or heat-processed controls. As part of their objection, CFS specifically notes that vitamin K activity after 15 months of storage was higher than directly after irradiation at both irradiation doses; however, it should be noted that irradiation may either accelerate or decelerate metabolic changes within the food, a factor which may account for differences observed following storage (Ref. 9). For example, it is known that vitamin K resides in the chloroplasts and has tight association with the thylakoid membranes. This tight association may account for the limited bioavailability of vitamin K from green leafy vegetables (Ref. 20). Processing techniques such as irradiation (particularly at high doses) may result in disruption of thylakoid membranes, an
Third, CFS contends that we failed to consider conflicting results from two studies cited by CFS: A study performed by Richardson et al. (Ref. 15); and a study performed by Metta et al. (Ref. 16). Although neither of these studies was cited in our nutrition memorandum, we were aware of both studies when evaluating the nutritional impact of irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy. We disagree with CFS' conclusions that the Richardson et al. study demonstrated that the “Vitamin K activity of diets containing small quantities of Vitamin K was markedly decreased by irradiation with sterilizing doses of gamma rays.” CFS' objection fails to note that, in the experimental report, the authors concluded that “practically none of the vitamin K activity was lost by the irradiation process when vitamin K
In addition, the Metta et al. study (Ref. 16) reported vitamin K deficiency in rats induced by the feeding of irradiated beef. However, we deemed the study irrelevant to the assessment of vitamin K loss in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach because the Metta et al. study assessed the vitamin K destruction of the more labile form of vitamin K found in meat (menaquinone). There are a number of different forms of vitamin K, including, but not limited to: Phylloquinone (vitamin K
Phylloquinone is the form of vitamin K that is found in spinach and other leafy greens, whereas menaquinone, although present in minor amounts, is the dominant form found in beef along with lesser amounts of dietary phylloquinone. The radiosensitivities differ among various forms of vitamin K. For example, Richardson et al. reported menadione (vitamin K
We do not agree with CFS' contention that our nutritional assessment of irradiated fresh lettuce and fresh spinach is called into question by these studies. Neither of these studies includes any information or data that would call into question our findings regarding the nutritional impact of irradiation under the petitioned conditions. We are therefore denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
Lastly, CFS asserts that a study conducted by Hirayama et al. (Ref. 17) was not reviewed by FDA in the approval process to permit ionizing radiation to treat fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, and therefore calls into question our nutritional assessment and ultimately our safety conclusion. In the Hirayama et al. study, germ-free mice were fed pelleted, sterilized animal feed. According to CFS, vitamin K
As previously mentioned in this document, research has demonstrated that different forms of vitamin K have variable sensitivities to irradiation. For example, the Richardson et al. study (Ref. 15) cited by CFS investigated the effects of ionizing radiation on vitamin K when different sources were used (i.e., probing the “differential sensitivities”). The sources of this vitamin were K
CFS asserts that the final rule does not provide an assessment of vitamin C loss from irradiation and further alleges that our assessment of irradiation-induced vitamin C loss in our nutrition memorandum is erroneous. CFS argues
We evaluated the vitamin C loss in irradiated fresh lettuce and fresh spinach and the evaluation was provided in our nutrition memorandum (Ref. 2). However, because fresh lettuce and fresh spinach are not major contributors to vitamin C in the U.S. diet, the question of vitamin C loss from these foods was not discussed in the final rule. While spinach has a relatively high concentration of vitamin C, the combined food group of “spinach/greens” contributes less than 2 percent to the total intake of vitamin C in the diet. Other major food sources (e.g., citrus fruit, fortified juice drinks, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, broccoli) provide the majority of vitamin C in the U.S. diet. We therefore determined that little if any reduction in intake of vitamin C in the U.S. diet is expected to result from irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach under the petitioned conditions of use.
We agree that the studies cited in our nutrition memorandum appear to report divergent results; however, for all these studies, we provided an explanation for each set of differences. For example, our nutrition memorandum states that, “[m]any of the early studies of the effects of irradiation on vitamin C levels measured AA levels only and consequently reported artificially high decreases in vitamin C,” and “AA losses of irradiated foods relative to controls may be quite different depending on whether AA levels are recorded immediately after irradiation or after typical storage conditions.” The memorandum also states that, “[i]n the most recent studies conducted on spinach and iceberg lettuce, when irradiation has been conducted at doses reflective of those that would be practical for maintaining acceptable sensory properties, reported losses were minimal.” Thus, the information provided by CFS, that the studies we reviewed regarding irradiation-induced loss of vitamin C showed varied results, does not call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule or our conclusion that irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe. We evaluated the totality of evidence and determined that the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy was safe. We are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
CFS contends that we do not address the synergistic effects of irradiation and heating, stating that nutrient losses would be even greater for dual processing compared to irradiation alone. In support of this objection, CFS cites a table in “Safety of Irradiated Foods” by Diehl (Ref. 9) specifically showing synergistic losses of vitamin E. We are aware that synergistic losses have been noted for vitamin E and thiamin, two vitamins that are particularly sensitive to irradiation; however, synergistic effects have not been observed for all vitamins or in all food types (Ref. 24). To determine the potential impact of irradiation at levels up to 4.0 kGy on the nutritional value of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, we considered all vitamins known to be present in these foods, and primarily focused on vitamins that are present in relatively high amounts in one or both of these foods and vitamins for which lettuce and spinach contribute more than a trivial amount to the total dietary intake of those vitamins (i.e., more than 1 to 2 percent). There are a number of commonly consumed foods that are substantial sources of vitamin E (e.g., certain nuts and oils, margarines) (Ref. 5); these foods are discussed in the reference cited by CFS. Substantial sources of thiamin include yeast breads, ready-to-eat cereals, pastas and grains, certain meats, and milk (Ref. 5). Neither of the two vitamins particularly sensitive to irradiation, vitamin E and thiamin, has been identified as being present in relatively high amounts in fresh lettuce and/or fresh spinach and as contributing more than a trivial amount to the total dietary intake of these vitamins. Therefore, the information provided by CFS, that synergistic losses have been found for vitamin E, does not call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and determination that irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe. Accordingly, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
CFS also objects that we underestimated the nutritional contribution of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach to the diet. Specifically, CFS states that we failed to consider spinach's “dramatically rising nutritional contribution” to the average American diet over time and failed to consider subpopulations which rely more heavily on spinach for nutrition than the statistically average American. Thus, CFS attempts to call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and ultimately our determination that irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe.
According to CFS, we employed two criteria to consider which nutrients were assessed: (1) Nutrients for which spinach/iceberg lettuce are an “excellent source;” and (2) nutrients for which spinach/iceberg lettuce contribute greater than 1 to 2 percent of the statistically average American's diet. CFS asserts that we should have provided a rationale for considering only nutrients for which spinach is an “excellent source” and should have considered vitamins for which spinach is also a “good source.” CFS has mischaracterized the criteria we used for our nutritional assessment, which was explained in our nutrition memorandum (Ref. 2). We explained in the nutrition memorandum that we considered all vitamins known to be present in lettuce and spinach in relatively high amounts (greater than or equal to 10 percent of the daily value for vitamins), including vitamins for which lettuce and/or spinach were “good” or “excellent” sources, and that contribute greater than 1 to 2 percent to the total dietary intake of those vitamins. Vitamins that did not meet these two criteria were not explicitly discussed in the nutrition memorandum. While fresh spinach is a “good source” of vitamin E, vitamin B
In addition, CFS objects to our second criteria, asserting that we rely on a “13-year old `snapshot' that misses the growing importance of [spinach] to the nutritional adequacy of American diets.” In support of this objection, CFS submitted a study performed by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Ref. 26). This study provides basic economic information about the market distribution of spinach in the United States. CFS points out that this study indicated an increase in the consumption of spinach from the 1970s through 2002. Table 1 of the ERS study presents “per capita use”
CFS further asserts that this rise in consumption of spinach could be used to provide a rough approximation of the dietary and nutritional contribution of spinach during these years (i.e., 1997 to 2002). CFS provides estimations for percent contribution of spinach to vitamin A and vitamin C intake and suggests that contributions of spinach to vitamin E, riboflavin, and vitamin B
However, we note that our nutritional assessment included a key conservative assumption that compensates for the increase in fresh spinach consumption cited by the ERS study. Specifically, we assumed that all spinach and iceberg lettuce in the food supply would be irradiated (i.e., 100 percent commercial application). For the years of 1994, 1995, and 1996, we conservatively estimated 100 percent commercial application; values for total per capita use of spinach were 1.71, 1.66, and 1.77 pounds, respectively, during those years, and we assumed all spinach could be irradiated when evaluating the nutritional impact of irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach. These values for total per capita use of spinach each exceed the value for fresh market consumption in 2002 and therefore, our assessment encompassed the increased per capita use of fresh spinach through use of this conservative approach. Since our approach did not underestimate fresh spinach consumption in our nutritional assessment, the data and information provided by CFS do not call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and determination that irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is safe. Moreover, CFS' assertion that the rise in spinach consumption indicates increased contributions of spinach to the dietary intake of vitamins is not based on actual data. The estimates provided by CFS are purely speculative; the estimates do not account for recent changes in calculation of vitamin A equivalency and presume no other changes in the U.S. diet (during the same time period) related to intakes of other foods containing vitamin A and provitamin A and certain water-soluble vitamins listed by CFS. Because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)), and a hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)), we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing.
CFS also objects to the final rule by alleging that we did not consider atypical consumers of spinach such as Asian women, women 60 years of age or older, and vegetarians. We are aware that there is variation in the amount of fresh spinach consumed by different U.S. subpopulations; however, CFS provided no evidence that spinach is a more significant source of certain vitamins for any particular subpopulation. Indeed, to establish the contribution and significance of spinach as a source of specific vitamins in the diet, the complete diet must be considered. For example, when assessing the relative contribution of spinach and other leafy greens to the vitamin A content of the diet, the dietary intake of other major contributors of vitamin A (including vitamin A rich foods such as organ meats and dairy products) and provitamin A rich foods (such as carrots, tomatoes, and fortified ready-to-eat cereals) should be included. In addition, according to the IOM, bioavailability of provitamin A carotenoids should be taken into account. In the absence of data on the complete diet, it is not possible to determine the percent contribution of spinach and lettuce to the dietary intake of vitamins for these population subgroups and whether the relative contribution of spinach and lettuce to the dietary intake of these vitamins varies for the subpopulations cited by CFS. While the ERS study indicates that Asian women and women 60 years of age or older consume a relatively greater amount of fresh spinach compared to statistically average Americans, CFS did not establish that the small losses of some vitamins that could result from the petitioned use of irradiation of fresh spinach would be nutritionally significant (i.e., exceed a trivial amount for the total diet) for any of these population subgroups. Thus, the information provided by CFS regarding certain subpopulations that consume more spinach is not sufficient to support CFS' assertion that we failed to protect “atypical” consumers and therefore underestimated the nutritional contribution of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach to the diet. We are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because the data and information submitted by CFS are insufficient to justify the factual determination urged, even if accurate (§ 12.24(b)(3)).
CFS also objects that we “failed to conduct a cumulative assessment of irradiation-induced nutrient losses in fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce in combination with irradiation-induced nutrient losses in other foods already approved for irradiation * * *.” CFS contends that by “breaking out” fresh lettuce and fresh spinach from the original petition, the nutritional impact will appear lessened, even if the impact of irradiating all the foods covered in the original petition is significant. Accordingly, CFS believes that we should conservatively assume that the entire supply of any given food will be irradiated at the maximum permitted dose when approving a petition. CFS'
We explained in the final rule our criteria for evaluating whether irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy would have an adverse effect on the nutritional quality of the diet. Our analysis focused on the effects of irradiation on those nutrients for which at least one of these foods may be identified as an “excellent source” or a “good source” and for which they contribute more than a trivial amount to the total dietary intake (i.e., the nutrients that had the potential to impact the diet). We based our decision on both the data and information submitted in the petition, as well as other data and information in our files. We determined that, based on the available data and information, the effects of irradiation on nutrient levels in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach treated under the proposed conditions will be insignificant and will not adversely affect the nutritional quality of the overall U.S. diet.
CFS alleges that “breaking out” fresh lettuce and fresh spinach from the foods covered in the original petition lessens the apparent overall nutritional impact of irradiated foods. However, the vitamin loss resulting from this regulation is negligible and therefore will not affect any cumulative assessment. CFS also asserts that we should conservatively assume that the entire supply of any given food will be irradiated at the maximum permitted dose during the approval of a petition. We agree with CFS and have chosen to employ this approach when assessing nutritional losses induced by irradiation. The nutrition memorandum notes that we, in our reviews and analysis of nutritional data, operate under the assumption that the entire supply of a given food may be irradiated at the maximum permitted dose. Contrary to what CFS appears to assert, the discussion of data at lower doses in the nutrition memorandum does not negate this assumption; rather, it reflects a review of published data on irradiation of various plant foods at both lower and higher doses. CFS has not submitted sufficient information to support the conclusion that nutrient loss in fresh lettuce or fresh spinach irradiated under the petitioned conditions, in combination with nutrient losses in other foods already approved for irradiation, would call into question our assessment of the nutritional impact of the final rule and would be a safety concern. Accordingly, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because a hearing will not be held on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions or contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)).
In another overall objection to the final rule, CFS objects to our safety evaluation of irradiated fresh lettuce and fresh spinach, stating that “FDA has failed to determine whether irradiation of fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce . . . will increase the risk of food-borne disease from radiation-insensitive pathogens such as
First, CFS asserts that we erred by not evaluating irradiation's potential effect on radiation-insensitive pathogens other than
Second, CFS asserts that the Petran et al. study (Ref. 27), which we cited in support of our conclusion that irradiation will not increase the risk of botulism, did not involve irradiation of fresh lettuce or fresh spinach, and therefore, did not address the safety concern that irradiation may provide enhanced growing conditions for radiation-insensitive pathogens due to the “elimination” of spoilage and other
The Petran et al. study (Ref. 27) assesses the potential for growth and toxin production of heat-shocked
CFS also objects to the use of the Petran et al. study because it did not involve fresh lettuce or fresh spinach; rather, the study explored the potential for growth and toxin production by
Further, it is important to note that the standards of microbiological safety of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach are independent of the final rule permitting the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach. Irradiation is just one potential control contributing to the mitigation of food-borne pathogens, and its intended technical effect is to reduce, not eliminate, spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, the final rule is not predicated on irradiation, by itself, resulting in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach that are pathogen-free.
The final portion of the CFS objection contends that the our microbiology memorandum contains contradictory statements, and therefore, the question of whether the growth of
CFS' objection implies that both statements cannot be true and that we misinterpreted the Zhang et al. study. However, we disagree that either statement is false. The Zhang et al. study (Ref. 29) reported substantially lower total bacterial counts for the irradiated samples as compared to the unirradiated control on the same day. Our microbiology memorandum's statement that “relative reductions [in numbers of viable bacteria during 9 days of storage] persisted . . .” is, therefore, correct. However, while these lower levels of bacteria persisted, the native microflora was also recovering as evidenced through the increase in total bacterial counts over the storage period. In the case of the 0.5 kGy and 1.0 kGy irradiation trials, bacterial counts attained initial levels (i.e., the control level on day zero) within days of treatment. For the 1.5 kGy sample, the total bacterial counts did not reach the control level by the end of the 9-day storage period, but the total bacterial counts increased as storage time increased. The results of the 1.5 kGy sample therefore demonstrate the veracity of both of the memorandum's statements: The native microflora was able to recover and the substantially lower bacterial counts persisted throughout the 9-day storage period. At the end of the 9-day storage period, the unirradiated control was reported to have 7.60 Log CFU/g
CFS' final objection contends that we have failed to consider alternatives to irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach. However, we evaluate a particular food additive only for its safety. Section 409(c)(1) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to establish a regulation prescribing, with respect to one or more proposed uses of the food additive involved, the conditions under which such additive may be safely used. The FD&C Act does not require us to consider alternatives as a factor in deciding whether to grant a food additive petition. We evaluated the safety of irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach at a maximum dose not to exceed 4.0 kGy based on three appropriate areas relevant to safety: (1) Potential toxicity; (2) nutritional adequacy; and (3) effects on the microbiological profile of the treated food. Based on the data and studies submitted in the petition and other information in our files, we properly concluded that the proposed use of irradiation to treat fresh lettuce and fresh spinach with absorbed doses that will not exceed 4.0 kGy is safe. Therefore, we are denying CFS' objection and request for a hearing because CFS raises a factual issue that is not determinative with respect to the action requested (e.g., the action would be the same even if the factual issue were resolved in the way sought) (§ 12.24(b)(4)).
FWW submitted objections to the final rule in a letter dated September 22, 2008, which concurred with objections put forth by CFS, and included an additional objection. FWW asserts that there is a basis to stay the approval of the final rule and to convene a public evidentiary hearing on the issue of the quality of the irradiated produce at the dose levels approved and whether there is technology currently available to achieve the pathogen reduction desired while still preserving the organoleptic properties of the produce. FWW asserts that approval of this petition raises issues of safety and deception to the consumer under section 409 of the FD&C Act because irradiating fresh lettuce and fresh spinach at the petitioned doses may result in organoleptic degradation and may not achieve pathogen reduction.
In support of its objection, FWW cites a 2008 study by Gomes et al. (Ref. 30), which according to FWW, demonstrated that doses higher than 1 kGy were necessary to ensure elimination of food-borne pathogens from bagged spinach leaves. Additionally, FWW quotes Dr. Mike Doyle, Director of the Center for Produce Safety at the University of Georgia, who stated that, “in a commercial processing plant, products are stacked in cartons for treatment, so the dose must be strong enough to irradiate every part of the package and that could lead to some products being `overly treated,' which could render the product unappetizing.” Thus, FWW asserts that pathogen reduction may require strong irradiation doses that will result in organoleptic degradation.
It appears from the objection that FWW has misinterpreted the intended technical effect from irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach to be the elimination of microbial contamination instead of the control of microbial contamination, as stated in the final rule. FWW provides no information to call into question our conclusions that the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach is safe and will achieve the intended technical effect of controlling microbial contamination at doses not to exceed 4.0 kGy. In addition, we acknowledge that radiation-induced chemical changes, if sufficiently large, may cause changes in the organoleptic properties of the food. However, such organoleptic changes do not necessarily render the food unsafe, and FWW has not provided any evidence that would establish a link between organoleptic changes and the safety of irradiated foods. Moreover, food processors have an incentive to minimize the extent of the chemical changes in the food to avoid undesirable effects on taste, odor, color, or texture. Therefore, we are denying FWW's objection and request for a hearing because a hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)).
FWW also asserted that irradiation is not effective against all food-borne pathogens (e.g., viruses) and could lead consumers to an incorrect conclusion that a product is safe even though it may still be contaminated. While we recognize that irradiation is not effective against viruses, the final rule permitting the irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy is not predicated on the irradiation treatment eliminating all potential pathogens. In the final rule, we concluded that the use of irradiation up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy on fresh lettuce and fresh spinach was safe. During the review, we considered chemical, toxicological, nutritional, and microbiological effects resulting from the application of ionizing radiation to fresh lettuce and fresh spinach. It was demonstrated that the petitioned use of irradiation would not raise safety concerns and that the treatment achieved its intended technical effects (i.e., reduction of microorganisms and extension of shelf life). Therefore, we are denying FWW's objection and request for a hearing. FWW has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the final rule would lead consumers to an incorrect conclusion that a product is safe even though it may still be contaminated; a hearing will not be granted on the basis of mere allegations or denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)). In addition, FWW's assertion that irradiation is not effective against all food-borne pathogens is not determinative with respect to the action requested; a hearing will not be granted unless resolution of the factual issue in the way sought is adequate to justify the action requested (§ 12.24(b)(4)).
Section 409 of the FD&C Act requires that a food additive be shown to be safe before marketing. Under 21 CFR 170.3(i), a food additive is “safe” if “there is a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.” In our August 22, 2008, final rule approving the use of irradiation of fresh lettuce and fresh spinach up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy, we concluded, based on our evaluation of the data submitted in the petition and other relevant material, that the petitioned use of irradiation is safe for its intended use for the control of food-borne pathogens and extension of shelf life in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach.
The petitioner has the burden to demonstrate the safety of the additive to gain FDA approval. However, once we make a finding of safety in an approval document, the burden shifts to an objector, who must come forward with evidence that calls into question our conclusion (see section 409(f)(1) of the FD&C Act).
CFS and FWW have not established that we overlooked or misinterpreted significant information in the record to reach our conclusion that the use of irradiation up to a maximum dose of 4.0 kGy for control of food-borne pathogens and extension of shelf life in fresh lettuce and fresh spinach is safe. Therefore, we have determined that the final rule should not be modified or revoked based on the objections. We are also denying the requests for a hearing because the objections do not meet the standard for granting a hearing as discussed in this document. In addition, FWW's request for a stay of the effectiveness of the August 22, 2008, regulation until a hearing is held is moot because we are denying all hearing requests. Thus, we are confirming August 22, 2008, as the effective date of the regulation.
The following sources are referred to in this document. References marked with an asterisk (*) have been placed on display at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, under Docket No. FDA–1999–F–2405 (formerly 1999F–5522) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically at
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Final rule.
FinCEN, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), is issuing this Final Rule
FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 949–2732.
FinCEN exercises regulatory functions primarily under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and other legislation, which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act” (“BSA”).
The AML program provisions of the BSA require financial institutions to establish programs that include, at a minimum: (1) The development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; (2) the designation of a compliance officer; (3) an ongoing employee training program; and (4) an independent audit function to test programs. When prescribing minimum standards for AML programs, FinCEN must “consider the extent to which the requirements imposed under [the AML program requirement] are commensurate with the size, location, and activities of the financial institutions to which such regulations apply.”
FinCEN has promulgated AML program and SAR regulations for a number of financial institutions. These financial institutions include banks, casinos, money services businesses, brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, insurance companies, futures commission merchants, and introducing brokers in commodities and loan and finance companies.
With this Final Rule, FinCEN establishes AML program and SAR requirements for the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), and the Federal Home Loan Banks (“Banks” or “FHL Banks,” collectively, the “Housing GSEs”). FinCEN believes that the Final Rule will augment FinCEN's regulatory and strategic initiatives. The Housing GSEs are involved in providing financing to the residential mortgage market and thus are exposed to the risk of fraud. Although the business of the Banks differs in a number of respects from that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of the Housing GSEs are involved in providing financing to the residential mortgage market and thus are vulnerable to fraud and other financial crimes. Also, both the primary and secondary residential mortgage markets are vulnerable to fraud and money laundering in terms of the proceeds of crime being invested in real property or securitized mortgages and related financial instruments. By purchasing mortgage loans, extending loans secured by mortgages and other real estate related collateral, and engaging in a variety of related financial activities, the Housing GSEs have access to, and are in a unique position to provide, information on suspected mortgage fraud and money laundering that has proven valuable to law enforcement and regulators in the investigation and prosecution of mortgage fraud and other financial crimes. While current fraud reporting by the Housing GSEs, discussed below, has value in combating fraud, the establishment of AML and SAR programs by the Housing GSEs will enable them to support broader regulatory and law enforcement efforts to combat mortgage fraud and related financial crimes consistent with the purposes of the BSA.
The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (the “Reform Act”)
Congress chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac primarily to establish secondary market facilities for residential mortgages to promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation. Specifically, Congress established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages, respond appropriately to the private capital market, and provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages, including activities relating to mortgages on housing for low-and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may provide less of a return than Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's other activities.
The Banks were organized under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (“The Bank Act”).
On January 27, 2010, FHFA issued fraud reporting regulations, codified at 12 CFR part 1233, “Reporting of Fraudulent Financial Instruments,” to implement the provisions of the Safety and Soundness Act with respect to the discovery and reporting of fraud, in furtherance of the supervisory responsibilities of FHFA.
On November 8, 2011, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to solicit comments on proposed AML and SAR regulations for the Housing GSEs.
This Final Rule is based on the NPRM and adopts, without significant change, all of the regulatory provisions proposed in the NPRM. The AML regulation promulgates the four minimum requirements noted earlier. The SAR regulation requires reporting of suspicious activity in accordance with the standards and procedures specified in the NPRM and contained in all of FinCEN's SAR regulations.
FinCEN believes that much of the effort necessary to meet these regulatory obligations, including information gathering, may be accomplished through business operations already undertaken as part of normal transaction negotiation, including due diligence and review of mortgage loans and related assets for purchase and securitization, and as collateral for advances and other investments, products, and services. As described in more detail below, the Housing GSEs have been filing SAR-like reports with FHFA for a number of years, and in other respects have supported the anti-fraud and anti-money laundering efforts of various law enforcement and regulatory agencies. FinCEN believes the Final Rule will enhance and strengthen the Housing GSEs' critical role in government and industry efforts to protect consumers, mortgage finance businesses, and the U.S. financial system from mortgage fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes.
The comment period on the NPRM ended on January 9, 2012. FinCEN received five comments. Comments were submitted by a Federal government agency (two letters), a trade association, representatives of some of the Housing GSEs, and a Federal government anti-fraud task force.
As noted in the NPRM, the BSA does not expressly identify any of the Housing GSEs in its definition of “financial institution.” The BSA's definition of financial institution lists numerous types of businesses, including commercial banks and other depository institutions.
The Housing GSEs work closely with other BSA-defined financial institutions; in fact, the majority of the Housing GSEs' counterparties and members are commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, and insurance companies. Many of the products and services offered by the Housing GSEs can be viewed as substitutes for or related to products and services offered by commercial banks and nonbank financial institutions included in the BSA's definition of financial institution.
The main role of the Housing GSEs is to support the primary mortgage market and affordable housing through the purchase, guarantee, and securitization of mortgage loans and the extension of loans secured primarily by mortgage loans and real estate related assets. The Banks also provide grants or subsidies for affordable housing and community investment. Typically, a significant portion of these mortgage loans are made by commercial banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations, which are already financial institutions under the BSA and subject to FinCEN's regulations.
One commenter noted that Congress enacted Section 1115 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”),
FinCEN is not persuaded by the commenter's analysis regarding Congress's intent, or by the commenter's interpretation of the BSA. Rather, FinCEN believes that Congress enacted the “catch-all” provision at 31 U.S.C. 5312(b)(2)(Y) in order to give the Secretary and his delegate, FinCEN, the discretion, in future regulatory actions, to add businesses and professions to the statutory list of financial institutions, and thereby make them subject to certain provisions of the BSA.
The scope of the Final Rule is limited. It defines the Housing GSEs as “financial institutions” under 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2)(Y) for the purposes of requiring them to establish AML programs and report suspicious activities, as well as allow them to participate in special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity. The term “Housing government sponsored enterprise” is added as a new defined term at 31 CFR 1010.100(mmm) for these purposes. Notably, the Final Rule does not amend the general definition of “financial institution” under FinCEN's regulations at 31 CFR 1010.100(t) because adding Housing GSEs to the general definition would trigger other recordkeeping and reporting requirements that FinCEN does not consider appropriate for the Housing GSEs at this time.
Under this Final Rule, the Housing GSEs are required to establish and maintain AML programs, and to file SARs directly with FinCEN, as of the regulatory compliance date. As emphasized in the NPRM, FinCEN does not expect the transition to compliance with the Final Rule to be unreasonably difficult or costly, primarily because the Housing GSEs already are required to have policies, management oversight, personnel training, and internal compliance review and various procedures and systems in place to comply with FHFA's current fraud reporting regulation and guidance.
The indirect reporting structure is inadequate to support the needs of law enforcement because reports are not available to law enforcement with the same speed they would be if they were filed directly. Additionally, law enforcement does not have the same ease of access to the records supporting any report filed by the Housing GSEs with FHFA as it would if the reports were filed directly with FinCEN under the obligations of the BSA. Direct filing by the Housing GSEs will result in a wider range of information made available to law enforcement more promptly. Finally, the indirect reporting structure does not allow the Housing GSEs to avail themselves of the BSA's “safe harbor.” The current reporting regime required by FHFA has its own “safe harbor,” but does not cover the same range of reporting as the BSA safe harbor, nor does it offer the same broad protection.
The comments on the NPRM primarily focused on the potential benefits, costs, and burdens of implementing the AML program and SAR filing requirements proposed in the NPRM. Three of the comments express the view that the Housing GSEs have limited access to useful SAR information about specific retail mortgage finance transactions. Two of these comments also stated that: (1) The current FHFA fraud reporting requirements are sufficient to support law enforcement, and any FinCEN SAR requirement would yield little, if any, additional useful information not already obtained by FHFA; (2) any new SAR requirement would result in duplicative SAR filings on the same suspicious activity, such as one report from a retail bank or non-bank mortgage company, and one report from the Housing GSE; and (3) any new AML and SAR regulations would require the Housing GSEs, particularly the Banks, to implement new detection, monitoring, and reporting practices, controls and systems, and possibly modify existing business models. In their view, the potential costs and burdens associated with any new AML or SAR regulations would not result in any corresponding substantial or justifiable benefit to law enforcement and regulators.
The three previously referenced comments cautioned that the Housing GSEs have limited interactions with parties to a primary market mortgage loan transaction (i.e., the lender, the borrower and various persons typically engaged in closing a primary purchase, refinance or home equity loan transaction) and, therefore, the Housing GSEs have limited access to information on the borrower's qualifications, the terms and circumstances regarding the loan, and other transaction-related information typically included in a SAR. Two of these comments also express the view that, due to the Banks' limited access to transactional information, extending AML and SAR requirements to the Housing GSEs, particularly the Banks, will not provide law enforcement with access to information on fraud related or non-fraud related money laundering or other financial crimes that FHFA does not already receive under the current FHFA reporting regime. These two comments further stated that the Banks, in particular, would likely need to restructure their current business practices, systems, and models to “peer through” their wholesale transactions and obtain information usually gathered at the origination stage to a greater extent than their current business practices and systems accomplish. The comments therefore urged that any new FinCEN AML or SAR requirements should not require the acquisition of transaction information that is not already obtained by the Housing GSEs in the ordinary course of business under current practices. One comment specifically requested that FinCEN confirm that any new AML and SAR rules will not require the Banks to establish new IT monitoring or data-mining systems of the kind adopted by higher risk institutions engaged in retail banking.
The comments further stated that the current FHFA fraud reporting regulations and guidance are sufficient to provide law enforcement and regulators with information necessary to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud and fraud related money laundering and other financial crimes typically associated with residential mortgage transactions, and that FinCEN's AML and SAR program requirements therefore are unnecessary.
One comment stated that the rules proposed in the NPRM would require the Banks to duplicate the efforts of “99 percent” of the Banks' customer base (i.e., retail banks and other insured depository institutions, all of whom already have a SAR filing obligation under applicable FinCEN and Federal banking regulations), thus resulting in overlapping or duplicative SAR reports on the same suspicious activity. One of the comments that generally supported the NPRM nonetheless cautioned that the proposed rules could result in “unintended consequences.” The comment noted, as an example of an unintended consequence, the likelihood of duplicative, overlapping requirements and SAR filings. One comment concluded simply that the potential additional benefits to law enforcement “appear to be minimal.”
The comments noted that the Banks already have expended significant time and resources on establishing and maintaining policies, procedures, systems and employee training to comply with FHFA's fraud reporting requirements. The comments concluded that FHFA requirements, and the programs established to comply with them, should be given time to “mature.” The comments expressed the view that any new rules should be issued only if it becomes evident that the current FHFA fraud reporting regime is determined to be inadequate. FinCEN believes the addition of the Housing GSEs within FinCEN's framework for SAR reporting will be the most efficient overall approach.
In the NPRM, FinCEN requested comment on whether it would be appropriate to include in a Final Rule any provisions that account for the differences in the business, operation, and mission of the Banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Three comments
The comments that supported the NPRM expressed opinions and conclusions largely contrary to those expressed in the comments summarized above. The supporting comments highlight the following benefits, among others, of the rules proposed in the NPRM: (1) The new SAR rules, by requiring the Housing GSEs to file SARs directly with FinCEN, will enhance FinCEN's database, reduce burdens on government resources, and strengthen the mortgage fraud prevention programs and initiatives of the Housing GSEs and FinCEN; (2) the rules will give law enforcement and regulators quicker access to SAR information that is critical to investigations, and keep them better informed about evolving criminal schemes; (3) the rules will enhance coordination on analysis and investigations by FinCEN, FHFA, FHFA–OIG, and other law enforcement authorities on the Federal, State, and local levels that have access to FinCEN's BSA database; and (4) the AML rules will bolster HERA's reporting requirement, which likely will result in better information for investigations and enforcement actions. FinCEN finds these views persuasive and believes the Final Rules will support Administration and government efforts to combat mortgage fraud and other financial crimes.
FinCEN believes that both the AML program and SAR filing requirements are necessary and appropriate for the Housing GSEs and other businesses involved in mortgage finance, in order to give law enforcement and regulatory agencies valuable, timely information on specific instances of suspected mortgage fraud and mortgage finance related money laundering, as well as provide insight into emerging patterns of regional and national criminal activity. The information from SARs and other BSA-related information assists law enforcement and regulators with the development of their strategic goals and policies, as well as with the deployment of valuable resources to high crime areas.
FHFA's fraud reporting program is important in that it allows FHFA to both monitor the Housing GSEs' success in identifying fraud and mitigate attendant risks, and assess the impact that involvement in such transactions may have on the Housing GSEs' operational risks and overall safety and soundness. FHFA's reporting system, however, was not designed to support the multi-jurisdictional and inter-governmental investigations, prosecutions, and trend analyses that rely on SAR data and other BSA-related information in FinCEN's databases. Only FinCEN, as the nation's financial intelligence unit and administrator of the BSA, has the authority and resources to collect, analyze, and disseminate this vast amount of information to its Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory partners securely and confidentially. The BSA and FinCEN's implementing regulations also permit sharing of primary and secondary mortgage market transactional information, in a secure and confidential manner, among financial institutions that enroll in FinCEN's 314(b) program.
FinCEN expects there will be transactions involving the Housing GSEs with respect to which two or more SARs will be submitted to FinCEN concerning the same transaction or activity, and in this respect, the SARs arguably may be viewed as “duplicative” or “overlapping.” For example, one SAR may be submitted by the retail-level originator or lender, and one “overlapping” SAR by a Housing GSE regarding the same transaction or activity. Based on the SARs filed to date under the MOU between FinCEN and FHFA, FinCEN believes a number of these “overlapping” SARs likely will concern a specific loan or loan pool repurchased by the originating institution upon the request of the Housing GSE, pursuant to the terms of the Housing GSE's contract with the originating institution or servicer. For example, a contract may permit a Housing GSE to demand repurchase upon discovery by the Housing GSE, a loan servicer, the originating institution, or a combination of these or other financial professionals, of loan related fraud or delinquency, including payment default, borrower misrepresentation, or some irregularity or discrepancy in the appraisal or loan documentation. The SAR forms, however, also may contain non-overlapping information and—in any event—will reflect the unique perspective and analyses of the two, or more, SAR filers. The availability of different data presented from different business perspectives by organizations with different, but complementary, roles in mortgage finance may be useful for law enforcement to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the transaction and its circumstances. FinCEN views this consequence of the existence of parallel reporting requirements for banks, non-bank residential mortgage lenders and originators, and Housing GSEs as a significant potential advantage to law enforcement and regulators that justifies the relatively minor additional costs and burdens to be borne by the Housing GSEs. This view is further confirmed by FinCEN's broad experience in requiring SAR reporting from a range of financial institutions, a small percent of which may contain reporting of partially overlapping information, but which together add significant value.
FinCEN's issuance of final AML and SAR rules for non-bank residential mortgage lenders and originators emphasized the critical importance of institutions establishing an AML program and filing SARs in order to prevent and identify mortgage fraud and other financial crimes.
FinCEN believes it is important to highlight the value of SARs that will be filed by the Housing GSEs. As one comment noted, law enforcement agencies have advised FinCEN and FHFA that SARs from the Housing GSEs under the present MOU procedures are very useful in the investigation and prosecution of financial crimes. Filing SARs directly with FinCEN will increase the speed and ease with which law enforcement and regulators can access and utilize the information contained in those valuable SARs. Finally, FinCEN's SAR database has been a “one-stop” integrated system for law enforcement and regulator access to valuable information on suspected financial crimes. It is appropriate, efficient, and consistent with FinCEN's statutory mandate to consolidate all suspicious activity reports from financial institutions in the database where they can be of the most value.
As FinCEN explained in the NPRM, the new SAR regulations will require the reporting of a potentially broader range of financial crimes than under FHFA's fraud reporting regulations. This, along with the ability to share information among the Housing GSEs and with other financial institutions, may well result in the Housing GSEs filing more SARs than fraud reports filed pursuant to FHFA's regulations. FinCEN also acknowledges that limited access to transactional information of a residential mortgage loan may limit the ability of a Housing GSE to include in a SAR all of the information typically found in a SAR filed by a retail bank or mortgage company. FinCEN expects that some of the Housing GSEs may need to establish new, or modify existing, policies, procedures, systems, organizational controls, or employee training arrangements. Nonetheless, FinCEN believes that these changes, and any related investments, will not need to be as extensive as some of the comments suggest, and that a substantial part of the new suspicious activity reporting and AML program requirements of this Final Rule may be integrated into existing procedures, controls, systems, and training programs with relatively minor costs. FinCEN emphasizes that each Housing GSE already has established procedures, systems, and controls to submit reports to FHFA when a Housing GSE discovers it has purchased or sold a fraudulent loan or financial instrument (e.g., a mortgage-backed security), or suspects a possible fraud relating to the purchase or sale of any loan or financial instrument. Under FHFA's guidance and the MOU, FHFA then transmits some of these reports to FinCEN using a SAR.
FinCEN believes that new investment in elaborate, expensive systems will not be necessary for the Banks, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae to comply with the Final Rule. For those Banks that anticipate the need to submit a relatively low number of SARs, they may establish procedures to submit individual SARs via FinCEN's established Web-based electronic system, which does not require acquisition of any new systems or modifications to systems used to comply with FHFA filing requirements. FinCEN and other agencies have issued substantial guidance on the development of risk-based AML and SAR reporting programs.
FinCEN also wishes to emphasize that, by the designation of the Housing GSEs as “financial institutions” under the BSA, the Housing GSEs, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents, are covered by the BSA's liability safe harbor for financial institutions that file SARs.
Section 1010.100(mmm) defines the key terms used in the Final Rule. The definitions reflect FinCEN's determination that AML program and SAR requirements should be applied to the Housing GSEs. The definition of “Housing government sponsored enterprise” includes: (1) The Federal National Mortgage Association; (2) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and (3) each Federal Home
Section 1010.810(b)(10) delegates authority to examine the Housing GSEs for compliance with the requirements of this Final Rule to FHFA. FHFA is the Federal regulator for the Housing GSEs and enforces its own statutes and regulations regarding safety and soundness. FHFA is FinCEN's delegate for examination for compliance with FinCEN's regulations. FinCEN will work with FHFA to coordinate and direct such delegated compliance examination activities. FinCEN retains enforcement authority under the BSA, including for the imposition of civil penalties for violations of these regulations.
Section 1030.210(a) requires each Housing GSE to develop and implement an AML program reasonably designed to prevent the Housing GSE from being used to facilitate money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities, and other financial crimes, including mortgage fraud. The program must be in writing and must be approved by senior management. A Housing GSE's written program also must be made available to FinCEN upon request.
Section 1030.210(b) sets forth the minimum requirements of a Housing GSE's AML program. Beyond these minimum requirements, however, the Final Rule is intended to give Housing GSEs the flexibility to design their programs to mitigate their own specific risks. Section 1030.210(b)(1) requires the AML program to incorporate policies, procedures, and internal controls based upon the Housing GSE's assessment of the risks of money laundering, terrorism finance, and other financial crimes associated with its products, counterparties, distribution channels, and geographic locations. A Housing GSE's assessment of counterparty-related information is a key component to an effective AML program. Thus, a Housing GSE's AML program must ensure that the Housing GSE obtains the information necessary to make its AML program effective. Such information may, but is not required to, include relevant information on individual borrowers and the financial institutions that are the Housing GSE's counterparties or members. The specific means of obtaining such information is left to the discretion of the Housing GSE.
In the NPRM, FinCEN stated that it anticipated that the Housing GSEs may need to amend existing agreements to ensure that they receive necessary customer information. Upon consideration of the comments on the NPRM, FinCEN highlights that amendment of agreements may not be necessary, and FinCEN emphasizes that the Final Rule does not require such amendments. However, the determination whether agreements may need amendment is a matter that the Housing GSEs' management should consider in assessing risks associated with products and services subject to the AML and SAR requirements. The AML program requirement does not obligate the Housing GSEs to obtain information that they do not already receive in the ordinary course of business under current practices, particularly with regard to information on individual borrowers the Housing GSEs do not receive in the ordinary course of business. For purposes of making the required risk assessment, a Housing GSE must consider all relevant information that is currently available to them, including whether the retail financial institutions that are its customers are subject to AML program requirements under the BSA.
Policies, procedures, and internal controls also must be reasonably designed to ensure compliance with BSA requirements. Housing GSEs may conduct some of their operations through third parties. Some elements of the compliance program may best be performed by personnel of such third parties, in which case it is permissible for a Housing GSE to delegate contractually the implementation and operation of those aspects of its AML program to such an entity, and to rely on the compliance program of such third parties if the third parties are subject to an independent AML program requirement under the BSA. Any Housing GSE that delegates responsibility for aspects of its AML program to a third party, however, remains fully responsible for the effectiveness of the program, as well as ensuring that examiners are able to obtain information and records relating to the AML program.
Section 1030.210(b)(2) requires that a Housing GSE designate a compliance officer to be responsible for administering the AML program. The person should be competent and knowledgeable regarding BSA requirements and money laundering and fraud issues and risks, and should be empowered with full responsibility and authority to develop and enforce appropriate policies and procedures. The role of the compliance officer is to ensure that (1) the program is implemented effectively; (2) the program is updated as necessary; and (3) appropriate persons are trained and educated in accordance with section 1030.210(b)(3).
Section 1030.210(b)(3) requires that a Housing GSE provide for education and training of appropriate persons. Employee training is an integral part of any AML program. To carry out their responsibilities effectively, employees of a Housing GSE (and of any third party not already receiving training as part of another AML program requirement) with responsibility under the program must be trained in the requirements of the Final Rule and money laundering and fraud risks generally so that they can identify red flags associated with existing or potential customers and transactions. Such training may be conducted by outside or in-house seminars, and may include computer-based training. The nature, scope, and frequency of the education and training program of the Housing GSE will depend upon the employee functions performed. However, those with obligations under the AML program must be sufficiently trained to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Moreover, these employees should receive periodic updates and refreshers regarding the AML program.
Section 1030.210(b)(4) requires that a Housing GSE provide for independent testing of the program on a periodic basis to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Final Rule and that the program functions as designed. An outside consultant or accountant need not perform the testing and review. The review may be conducted by an officer, employee or group of employees, so long as the reviewer is not the designated compliance officer and does not report directly to the compliance officer. The frequency of the independent testing will depend upon the Housing GSE's assessment of risks posed by its operations. Any recommendations resulting from such testing should be reviewed by senior management. A Housing GSE may also rely on the testing performed by third parties that are subject to an independent AML program requirement. Section 1030.210(c) states that compliance with the AML program requirements will be determined by FinCEN or its delegate.
Section 1030.320(a) contains the rules setting forth the obligation of Housing
Section 1030.320(a)(1) contains the general statement of the obligation to file reports of suspicious transactions. The obligation extends to transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through a Housing GSE. The Final Rule also contains a provision in section 1030.320(a)(1) designed to encourage the reporting of transactions that appear relevant to violations of law or regulation, even in cases in which the Final Rule does not explicitly so require, such as in the case of a transaction falling below the $5,000 threshold.
Section 1030.320(a)(2) specifically describes the four categories of transactions that require reporting. A Housing GSE is required to report a transaction if it knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part): (i) Involves funds derived from illegal activity or is intended or conducted to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity; (ii) is designed, whether through structuring or other means, to evade the requirements of the BSA; (iii) has no business or apparent lawful purpose, and the Housing GSE knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts; or (iv) involves the use of the Housing GSE to facilitate criminal activity.
A determination as to whether a report is required must be based on all the facts, circumstances and information to which the Housing GSE has access, in the ordinary course of its business, relating to the transaction and customer of the Housing GSE in question. Different fact patterns and circumstances will require different judgments. Some examples of red flags associated with existing or potential customers are referenced in previous FinCEN reports and guidance on mortgage fraud and SAR filing. However, the means of commerce and the techniques of money laundering are continually evolving, and there is no way to provide an exhaustive list of suspicious transactions or red flags. FinCEN will continue to pursue a regulatory approach that involves a combination of guidance, training programs, and government-industry information exchange so that implementation of any new AML program and SAR reporting regulations can be accomplished in the most flexible and cost efficient way possible, while protecting the primary and secondary mortgage markets and the financial system as a whole from fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes.
Section 1030.320(a)(3) provides that the obligation to identify and to report a suspicious transaction rests with the Housing GSE involved in the transaction. However, where more than one Housing GSE, or another financial institution with a separate suspicious activity reporting obligation, is involved in the same transaction (or related transactions), only one report is required to be filed, provided it contains all relevant information and each institution maintains a copy of the report and any supporting documentation related to the SAR. There is, however, no obligation for the Housing GSEs to notify each other or work together in such circumstances. Each Housing GSE must evaluate customer activity and relationships for fraud, money laundering, and other financial crime risks, and design a suspicious transaction monitoring and reporting program that is appropriate for the particular Housing GSE in light of such risks.
Section 1030.320(b) sets forth the filing procedures to be followed by Housing GSEs making reports of suspicious transactions. Within 30 days after a Housing GSE becomes aware of a suspicious transaction (or within 60 days if no suspect has been identified), it must report the transaction by completing a SAR and filing it with FinCEN. Supporting documentation relating to each SAR is to be collected and maintained separately by the Housing GSE and made available upon request by FinCEN, FHFA or any appropriate Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, or any Federal regulatory authority that examines the Housing GSE for compliance with the BSA. FinCEN's SAR regulations provide that the documentation supporting a SAR that is maintained by the filer, is deemed to be filed with the SAR. Thus, supporting documentation may be disclosed to the authorities referenced above to whom a SAR form may be disclosed, consistent with the rules of construction, described below. For situations requiring immediate attention, Housing GSEs are to telephone the appropriate law enforcement authority in addition to filing a SAR.
Section 1030.320(c) provides that the filing Housing GSE must maintain copies of SARs and the underlying related documentation for a period of five years from the date of filing.
Section 1030.320(d)(1) reinforces the statutory prohibition against the disclosure by a financial institution of a SAR (regardless of whether the report would be required by the Final Rule or is filed voluntarily).
Section 1030.320(d)(2) incorporates the statutory prohibition against disclosure of SAR information, other than in fulfillment of their official duties consistent with the BSA, by government users of SAR data. The section also clarifies that official duties
Section 1030.320(e) provides protection from liability for making reports of suspicious transactions, and for nondisclosures of such a report, to the full extent provided by 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(3). This statutory safe harbor, unlike that afforded to the Housing GSEs under FHFA regulations,
Section 1030.320(f) notes that compliance with the obligation to report suspicious transactions will be examined by FinCEN or its delegates, and provides that failure to comply with the Final Rule may constitute a violation of the BSA and FinCEN's regulations.
Section 1030.320(g) provides that the new SAR requirement is effective when an anti-money laundering program required by the regulations is required to be implemented.
Section 1030.500 states that the Housing GSEs are covered by the special information procedures to detect money laundering and terrorist activity requirements set forth and cross referenced in sections 1030.520 (cross-referencing to 31 CFR 1010.520) and 1030.540 (cross-referencing to 31 CFR 1010.540). Sections 1010.520 and 1010.540 implement sections 314(a) and 314(b)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a regulation that has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation's impact on small entities. Such an analysis need not be undertaken if the agency has certified that the regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). In this case, the Final Rule applies only to the Housing GSEs, none of which is a small entity for purposes of this requirement. Accordingly, FinCEN hereby certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, no analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is required.
This Final Rule pertains to the Housing GSEs. As a result, the Final Rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this Final Rule is designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Final Rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), Public Law 104–4 (March 22, 1995), requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that may result in expenditure by the State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. Taking into account the factors noted above and using conservative estimates of average labor costs in evaluating the cost of the burden imposed by the Final Rule, FinCEN has determined that it is not required to prepare a written statement under Section 202.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Currency, Federal home loan banks, Foreign banking, Foreign currencies, Gambling, Investigations, Mortgages,
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter X of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 5316–5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307.
(mmm)
(i) The Federal National Mortgage Association;
(ii) The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or
(iii) Each Federal Home Loan Bank.
(2) The term “housing government sponsored enterprise” does not include any “Entity-Affiliated Party,” as defined in 12 U.S.C. 4502(11).
(b) * * *
(10) To the Federal Housing Finance Agency with respect to the housing government sponsored enterprises, as defined in § 1010.100(mmm) of this part.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 5316–5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307.
Refer to § 1010.100 of this chapter for general definitions not noted herein.
Housing government sponsored enterprises are subject to the program requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Housing government sponsored enterprises should also refer to subpart B of part 1010 of this chapter for program requirements contained in that subpart that apply to housing government sponsored enterprises.
(a)
(b)
(1) Incorporate policies, procedures, and internal controls based upon the housing government sponsored enterprise's assessment of the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with its products and services. Policies, procedures, and internal controls developed and implemented by a housing government sponsored enterprise under this section shall include provisions for complying with the applicable requirements of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code and this part, and obtaining all relevant customer-related information necessary for an effective anti-money laundering program.
(2) Designate a compliance officer who will be responsible for ensuring that:
(i) The anti-money laundering program is implemented effectively;
(ii) The anti-money laundering program is updated as necessary; and
(iii) Appropriate persons are educated and trained in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(3) Provide for on-going training of appropriate persons concerning their responsibilities under the program. A housing government sponsored enterprise may satisfy this requirement by training such persons or verifying that such persons have received training by a competent third party with respect to the products and services offered by the housing government sponsored enterprise.
(4) Provide for independent testing to monitor and maintain an adequate program. The scope and frequency of the testing shall be commensurate with the risks posed by the housing government sponsored enterprise's products and services. Such testing may be conducted by a third party or by any officer or employee of the housing government sponsored enterprise, other than the person designated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(c)
(d)
Housing government sponsored enterprises are subject to the reporting requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Housing government sponsored enterprises should also refer to subpart C of part 1010 of this chapter for reporting requirements contained in that subpart that apply to housing government sponsored enterprises.
(a)
(2) A transaction requires reporting under this section if it is conducted or attempted by, at, or through a housing government sponsored enterprise, it involves or aggregates funds or other assets of at least $5,000, and the housing government sponsored enterprise knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction (or a pattern of transactions of which the transaction is a part):
(i) Involves funds derived from illegal activity or is intended or conducted in order to hide or disguise funds or assets derived from illegal activity (including, without limitation, the ownership, nature, source, location, or control of such funds or assets) as part of a plan to violate or evade any Federal law or regulation or to avoid any transaction reporting requirement under Federal law or regulation;
(ii) Is designed, whether through structuring or other means, to evade any requirements of this chapter or any other regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act;
(iii) Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which the particular housing government sponsored enterprise customer would normally be expected to engage, and the housing government sponsored enterprise knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction; or
(iv) Involves use of the housing government sponsored enterprise to facilitate criminal activity.
(3) More than one housing government sponsored enterprise may have an obligation to report the same transaction under this section, and financial institutions involved in that same transaction may have separate obligations to report suspicious activity with respect to that transaction pursuant to other provisions of this chapter. In those instances, no more than one report is required to be filed by the housing government sponsored enterprise(s) and any financial institution(s) involved in the transaction, provided that the report filed contains all relevant facts, including the name of each housing government sponsored enterprise or financial institution involved in the transaction, the report complies with all instructions applicable to joint filings, and each institution maintains a copy of the report filed, along with any supporting documentation.
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(ii)
(A) The disclosure by a housing government sponsored enterprise, or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a housing government sponsored enterprise of:
(B) The sharing by a housing government sponsored enterprise, or any director, officer, employee, or agent of the housing government sponsored enterprise, of a SAR, or any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, within the housing government sponsored enterprise's corporate organizational structure for purposes consistent with Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act as determined by regulation or in guidance.
(2)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Refer to § 1010.330 of this chapter for rules regarding the filing of reports relating to currency in excess of $10,000 received by housing government sponsored enterprises.
Housing government sponsored enterprises are subject to the recordkeeping requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Housing government sponsored enterprises should also refer to subpart D of part 1010 of this chapter for recordkeeping requirements contained in that subpart that apply to housing government sponsored enterprises.
Housing government sponsored enterprises are subject to special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Housing government sponsored enterprises should also refer to subpart E of part 1010 of this chapter for special information sharing procedures to deter money laundering and terrorist activity contained in that subpart that apply to housing government sponsored enterprises.
(a) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on August 25, 2011. The revisions pertaining to Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program are being fully approved. EPA is granting limited approval to the revisions pertaining to Virginia's nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program. In both cases, the revisions incorporate preconstruction permitting regulations for fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on March 27, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0927. All documents in the docket are listed in the
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by email at
On August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45523), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of amendments to Virginia's major NSR permitting regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) to incorporate requirements for PM
Virginia's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal included revisions to the general definitions under Chapter 10 of 9VAC5 (specifically 9VAC5–10–30), as well as revisions to Articles 8 (PSD) and 9 (nonattainment NSR) under Chapter 80 of 9VAC5. The following regulations under Article 8 are revised: 9VAC5–80–1615 (Definitions); 9VAC5–80–1635 (Ambient Air Increments); 9VAC5–80–1695 (Exemptions); 9VAC5–80–1715 (Source Impact Analysis); and 9VAC5–80–1765 (Sources Affecting Federal Class I Areas—Additional Requirements). Under Article 9, the regulations at 9VAC5–80–2010 (Definitions) and 9VAC5–80–2120 (Offsets) are amended.
As discussed in the NPR, in light of litigation EPA proposed to take no action with regard to the Significant Impact Level (SIL) regulation at paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715 (
Subsequent to publication of the NPR, on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in
As discussed in the NPR, VADEQ's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal included revisions to Virginia's nonattainment NSR program consistent with the provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM
EPA is in the process of evaluating the requirements of subpart 4 as they pertain to nonattainment NSR. In particular, subpart 4 includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major stationary sources of PM
On January 12, 2009, EPA finalized a clean data determination for the area, (74 FR 1146), which suspended the requirement for the state to submit, among other things, an attainment plan SIP for the area. Accordingly, on January 23, 2012, Virginia withdrew the attainment plan SIP, and it is no longer before EPA. As EPA does not have before it the state's analysis as to which precursors need to be controlled in the area as contained in the attainment plan SIP, it cannot fully approve as complying with the CAA a nonattainment NSR SIP that only addresses a subset of the scientific PM
On the other hand, while VADEQ's submittal may not yet contain all of the elements necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under subpart 4, the revisions represent a considerable strengthening of Virginia's currently approved nonattainment NSR SIP which does not address PM
For the reasons explained above, EPA is not evaluating at this time whether Virginia's submittal will require additional revisions to satisfy the subpart 4 requirements. Once EPA re-promulgates the Federal PM
As previously discussed, VADEQ's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal also includes revisions to Virginia's PSD program consistent with the provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM
Similarly, in the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve portions of related infrastructure (or CAA Section 110(a)(2)) SIP submissions, for the purpose of determining that Virginia has met its statutory obligations with respect to the PSD-related infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM
In addition to the proposed approval of the PSD portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA stated in the NPR that: “Because Virginia has met its obligations with respect to the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its regional haze SIP, which EPA took final action to approve on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16397), EPA is also proposing to approve the portions of Virginia's previous infrastructure submittals related to the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
As discussed in Section III, below, EPA has already taken separate and final action to approve the portions of these identified SIP submittals which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
Other specific requirements of Virginia's August 25, 2011 SIP submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
EPA received two sets of comments on the August 1, 2012 NPR. A full set of these comments is provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided herein.
A second commenter submitted two substantive comments. First, the commenter raised concerns regarding EPA's determination that Virginia has met its obligations with respect to the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by virtue of its regional haze SIP. Second, the commenter raised several concerns about the legality of SILs and SMCs, as well as Virginia's adoption of them.
On June 13, 2012, EPA issued a final rule granting limited approval to the Virginia regional haze SIP (
Therefore, as part of the August 2012 NPR for this rulemaking, EPA inadvertently proposed to approve Virginia's previously submitted infrastructure SIPs as meeting the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the 1997 and 2006 PM
Secondly, the commenter asserted that the specific SILs at 9VAC5–80–1715A and B should be disapproved because they do not provide VADEQ with sufficient discretion to require a cumulative impact analysis regardless of whether a source's impact is below the SIL. In addition, the commenter asserts that the SIL values in paragraphs A(2) and B(1) of section 5–80–1715 are set at different levels and could lead to confusion. Moreover, the commenter asserted that the SIL values in paragraph 5–80–1715B(1) are not sufficiently protective of Class I areas because, unlike the SIL values in paragraph A, paragraph B does not distinguish different SIL values based on area classifications. Finally, the commenter asserts that the thresholds in paragraph 5–80–1715B(1) are improperly incorporated into Virginia's SIP because they have as their basis Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, which applies in situations where EPA has not approved a state's preconstruction review program.
As to any apparent conflict between the two SIL provisions in Virginia's SIP submission, paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715 has been withdrawn and thus the commenter's concern regarding any potential for confusion between the two provisions is addressed by withdrawal of one provision from the SIP submission.
As to the SILs in paragraph B(1), the commenter is incorrect in the claim that these SIL values were only intended to apply in states without an EPA-approved PSD program. While it is true that those SIL values are published in Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51, they are also published in section 51.165(b)(2). Section 51.165(b) implements section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA and applies to sources or modifications locating in attainment or unclassifiable areas that would cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in any area. This is the basis for their inclusion in Virginia's SIP. These SILs establish the threshold at or above which a new major stationary source or major modification will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard, and thus subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(b). EPA has recognized that the values in section 51.165(b)(2) may also be used in the PSD program to support the demonstration required by 40 CFR 51.165(k)(1) and section 165(a)(3) of the CAA that proposed construction will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. However, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the Federal regulations set forth at section 51.165(b) do not impede a permitting authority's discretion to require a cumulative impact analysis to make the showing required by section 51.166(k)(1) and section 165(a)(3) of the CAA where the source's impact is below a SIL value in section 51.165(b). Similarly, the corresponding state regulation at 9VAC5–80–1715B(1) does not impede the state's permitting authority discretion. Both provisions address the threshold above which a source will be considered to cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation. However, the provisions do not preclude a determination that a source may be considered to cause and contribute to a NAAQS violation even when the impact is below a SIL value set forth in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) which is utilized by the permitting authority. In fact, the court in
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD and nonattainment NSR programs 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 Virginia's August 25, 2011 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP, with the exception of paragraph A(2) of 9VAC5–80–1715, and the portion of paragraph E(1) of 9VAC5–80–1695 pertaining to PM
Additionally, on December 20, 2012 (77 FR 75380), EPA approved revisions to Articles 8 and 9 of 9VAC5, chapter 80. Neither that action nor the current action removes the pre-existing limited approval status of Virginia's PSD and nonattainment programs (
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 April 28, 2014. 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 Virginia's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The amendments read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving requests by Indiana to revise the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality state implementation plan (SIP) for Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties to replace onroad emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with inventories and budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. Indiana submitted the SIP revision requests for Allen, Vigo, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties on July 2, 2013, and submitted the SIP revision request for Greene County on July 8, 2013.
This direct final rule will be effective April 28, 2014, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 27, 2014. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0414 (Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0424 (Allen County), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0425 (Greene County), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0432 (Vigo County), by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based onroad emissions inventories and budgets for the Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance areas that will replace
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). These SIP revisions and maintenance plans include budgets of onroad mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors. Transportation plans and projects “conform” to (i.e., are consistent with) the SIP when they will not cause or contribute to air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or an interim milestone.
EPA previously approved MOBILE6.2-based budgets for the Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties 8-hour ozone maintenance areas for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating highway emissions. EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411). Use of the MOVES model is required for regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013.
The MOVES model was used to estimate emissions in the areas for the same milestone years as the original onroad emissions inventories and budgets in the SIP. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is revising the onroad emissions inventories and budgets using the latest planning assumptions, including population and employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data have been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleets. Since future demonstrations of conformity will use emissions estimates derived with MOVES, it is appropriate to establish benchmarks based on MOVES. The interagency consultation groups for these areas have had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.
During the state public comment periods for these submittals, Indiana did not receive any comments for the Allen County, Vigo County, or Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties submittals. Indiana received comments requesting clarification on the Greene County submittal from concerned citizens and the Hoosier Environmental Council, and provided responses to the clarifications requested.
Indiana submitted final budgets to EPA, based on MOVES2010a, that cover the Allen County (submitted July 2, 2013), Greene County (submitted July 8, 2013), Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties (submitted July 2, 2013), and Vigo County (submitted July 2, 2013), Indiana areas.
For Allen County, the new MOVES2010a-based budgets are for the year 2020 for both VOCs and NO
As shown in tables 1 through 8, the submittals demonstrate how the areas' emissions have declined from the attainment year to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties. An appropriate safety margin for NO
EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g., reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance). The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110. In addition, adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity purposes.
States can revise their budgets and inventories for specific areas using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall effectiveness of the SIP. The submittals meet this requirement as described below in the next section.
For more information, see EPA's latest “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (April 2012), available online at:
The SIP revision requests for these areas' 1997 ozone maintenance plans seek to revise only the onroad mobile source inventories. IDEM has certified that the control strategies for each area remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. IDEM has determined that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, and point) have not changed significantly from the original submittals. This is confirmed by the monitoring data for the five areas, which
IDEM's submittals confirm that the total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) as shown in tables 1 through 8 demonstrate that emissions in the areas continue to decline and remain below the attainment levels.
Indiana has submitted MOVES 2010a-based budgets for Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties that are clearly identified in the submittals. The budgets are displayed in tables 9 through 12. It should be noted that in tables 9 through 12, for onroad emissions of both VOC and NO
EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Indiana for use in determining transportation conformity in the Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties, Indiana 1997 ozone maintenance areas. EPA evaluated the MOVES-based budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and SIP requirements.
Before submitting the revised budgets, IDEM followed all necessary conformity procedures. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in the submittals. The budgets, when considered with other emissions sources, are consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventories and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the Appendices to the submittals. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway Administration and the Indiana Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the areas' metropolitan planning organizations to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The state has documented that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e. area, nonroad, and point) continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
Indiana's submissions confirm that the SIP continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard because the total emissions in the revised SIP (including MOVES2010a emissions for onroad mobile sources) continue to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plans for these areas, as shown in tables 1 through 8. As tables 1 through 12 show, the submitted budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.
Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA has determined that the SIP will continue to meet the requirements if the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a inventories.
Upon the effective date of the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets for these areas will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.
EPA is approving the submitted onroad mobile source emissions inventories and the submitted budgets for the Allen County (submitted July 2, 2013), Greene County (submitted July 8, 2013), Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties (submitted July 2, 2013), and Vigo County (submitted July 2, 2013), Indiana 1997 ozone maintenance plans. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
• 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 (Public Law 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 April 28, 2014. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
The additions read as follows:
(bb) * * *
(2) Approval—On July 8, 2013, Indiana submitted a request to revise the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Greene County, Indiana area. The budgets are being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 budgets for Greene County, Indiana are 0.90 tons per day VOC and 2.31 tons per day NO
(dd) * * *
(2) Approval—On July 2, 2013, Indiana submitted a request to revise the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Vigo County, Indiana area. The budgets are being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 budgets for Vigo County, Indiana are 2.17 tons per day VOC and 5.07 tons per day NO
(ee) * * *
(2) Approval—On July 2, 2013, Indiana submitted a request to revise the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties, Indiana area. The budgets are being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 budgets for Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties, Indiana are 5.02 tons per day VOC and 12.61 tons per day NO
(ff) * * *
(2) Approval—On July 2, 2013, Indiana submitted a request to revise the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Allen County, Indiana area. The budgets are being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The 2020 budgets for Allen County, Indiana are 4.52 tons per day VOC and 9.72 tons per day NO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action finding that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not submitted state implementation plans (SIPs) for three nonattainment areas in Berks and Beaver Counties to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for attaining the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pennsylvania has not yet submitted SIPs for three nonattainment areas—the Lyons and North Reading nonattainment areas in Berks County and the Lower Beaver Valley nonattainment area in Beaver County—that demonstrate how each nonattainment area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. These plans were due by June 30, 2012. If Pennsylvania has not submitted and the EPA has not approved the required attainment plans for its nonattainment areas by no later than 2 years after the effective date of this finding, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the affected nonattainment area. In addition, the CAA provides for the imposition of sanctions if the state does not submit the required attainment SIP within specific timeframes.
General questions concerning this rule should be addressed to Ms. Mia South, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: C504–2, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541–5550. For questions related to Pennsylvania, please contact the EPA's Region 3, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30), Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2023; telephone (215) 814–2178.
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submissions to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As the EPA has explained in prior rulemakings,
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0032. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
Subpart 5, part D of title I of the CAA requires states with areas that are designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS to develop a SIP providing how the state will attain the air standards. Section 172 of the CAA specifies the required elements of a SIP for an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. These requirements include, but are not limited to, an attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT), annual emissions reductions as necessary to ensure reasonable further progress (RFP) and contingency measures. Most states with lead nonattainment areas designated in 2010 have submitted SIPs addressing these requirements as required under the CAA. However, one state, Pennsylvania, has not yet submitted SIPs for three nonattainment areas—the Lyons and North Reading nonattainment areas in Berks County and the Lower Beaver Valley nonattainment area in Beaver County. These SIPs were due on June 30, 2012. By this action, the EPA is making a finding that Pennsylvania has failed to submit the required complete SIPs for these three nonattainment areas.
On October 15, 2008, the EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for lead.
On November 16, 2010, the EPA identified or “designated” 16 areas, consisting of 17 partial counties, as “nonattainment areas” not meeting the 2008 NAAQS for lead. In this first round, the EPA designated areas nonattainment based on 2007–2009 air quality monitoring data. These designation actions were effective on December 31, 2010. On November 8, 2011, the EPA completed a second round of designations, based on monitoring data from 2008–2010, including monitors newly established under the 2008 Lead NAAQS Rule. In this second round, the EPA designated five areas, including five partial counties, as nonattainment and designated the remaining areas in the country as attainment/unclassifiable or unclassifiable for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. These designation actions were effective on December 31, 2011. For the full listing of areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS (15 states, 21 nonattainment areas and 22 partial counties)
The three areas in Pennsylvania were designated nonattainment in the first round, effective December 31, 2010. In accordance with the CAA, attainment SIPs for these areas were required to be submitted no later than June 30, 2012. As explained in further detail in the 2008 Lead NAAQS Rule, the key required elements of the attainment SIP include the attainment demonstration, RACM/RACT, RFP and contingency measures. The attainment demonstration provides details on how a nonattainment area will reduce pollution and provides a plan for the area to meet the lead NAAQS. Under subpart 5 part D of title I of the CAA, an attainment demonstration for these areas is required to show how the nonattainment area will attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after the effective date of designation, or December 31, 2015, for the areas designated in the first round for which Pennsylvania failed to submit an attainment SIP. The attainment demonstration takes into account projected emission reductions from existing federal and state measures, plus any additional RACM/RACT that are adopted by the state to attain “as expeditiously as practicable.” Air quality modeling of these projected emissions reductions in future years is an important element of the attainment demonstration.
Each nonattainment SIP must include RACM/RACT as necessary for the area to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The CAA requires the state to demonstrate that it has adopted all RACM, considering economic and technical feasibility and other factors, that are needed to show that the area will attain the lead standards as expeditiously as practicable. The 2008 Lead NAAQS Rule sets forth more specific guidance for making RACM and RACT determinations.
Each plan must also ensure that the area is making RFP in terms of emission reductions and air quality improvements toward attainment. The
SIPs must also include contingency measures, which are emission reduction measures to be undertaken if the area fails to satisfy the RFP requirement or fails to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS by the attainment date. These measures are to take effect without significant further action by the state or the EPA. As discussed in the 2008 Lead NAAQS Rule, the EPA generally expects that contingency measures will be implemented as expeditiously as practicable, and will be fully implemented within 60 days of the EPA notifying the state that contingency measures are necessary.
The Clean Data Policy represents the EPA's interpretation that certain requirements of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the Act are by their terms not applicable to areas that are attaining the NAAQS.
We note that several lead nonattainment areas currently have air quality that attains the 2008 Lead NAAQS, but have not yet completed the process for redesignating the area to attainment. Where the EPA has published in the
Section 179(a)(1) of the CAA establishes specific consequences if the EPA finds that a state has failed to submit a SIP or, with regard to a submitted SIP, if the EPA determines it is incomplete or if the EPA disapproves it. Additionally, any of these findings also triggers an obligation for the EPA to promulgate a FIP if the state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required SIP within 2 years of the finding.
The EPA is finding that Pennsylvania has failed to make the required nonattainment SIP submissions for the Lyons and North Reading nonattainment areas in Berks County and the Lower Beaver Valley nonattainment area in Beaver County. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that Pennsylvania has made the required complete nonattainment SIP submissions within 18 months of the effective date of this action then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in any area subject to the findings for which a complete submission has not been made. If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that Pennsylvania has made a complete submission for each area subject to the findings within 6 months after the emission offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will also apply in any area subject to the finding for which a complete submission has not been made, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The 18-month clock will stop and the sanctions will not take effect, within 18 months after the date of this finding, if the EPA finds that Pennsylvania has made a complete nonattainment SIP submission for each area for which the finding is being made or if the EPA makes a determination the area is attaining the standard consistent with the EPA's Clean Data Policy. In addition, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP if Pennsylvania makes the required SIP submittal, and the EPA takes final action to approve the submittal, or if EPA makes a final determination the area is attaining the standard consistent with the Clean Data Policy, within 2 years of the EPA's finding. Contemporaneous with the signing of this rule, the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator is sending a letter to the governor of Pennsylvania informing the governor that the EPA is determining that Pennsylvania has failed to make the required SIP submissions for the specified areas. This letter and any accompanying enclosures have been included in the docket for this action.
In this action, the EPA is making a finding of failure to submit for Pennsylvania with regard to areas designated nonattainment for lead in 2010. Pennsylvania has not yet submitted attainment SIPs for three nonattainment areas—the Lyons and North Reading nonattainment areas in Berks County and the Lower Beaver Valley nonattainment area in Beaver County.
In accordance with CAA section 179, this finding starts the 18-month emission offset sanctions clock, the 24-month highway funding sanctions clock and a 24-month clock for the promulgation by the EPA of a FIP. This action will be effective on February 25, 2014.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industry entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action makes a finding that Pennsylvania failed to submit attainment SIPs for the 2008 Lead NAAQS as required by the CAA.
This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for state, local and tribal governments and the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector, because the requirement to submit an attainment SIP is established in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action makes a finding that Pennsylvania failed to submit attainment SIPs for the 2008 Lead NAAQS as required by the CAA.
EO 13132, titled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the EO to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states or the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby states take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS. This action will not modify the relationship of the states and the EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
EO 13175, titled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. This action responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment SIPs for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is making findings that Pennsylvania failed to submit nonattainment SIPs for the 2008 Lead NAAQS as required by the CAA. The enforceable measures in the attainment SIPs will ensure that the areas will attain the NAAQS for lead, which was established to protect public health, including the health of children, with an adequate margin of safety.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995 Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the action in the
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 Third Circuit within 60 days from the date this action is published in the
Environmental protection, Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the final rule published in the
This correcting amendment is effective February 25, 2014.
Ronisha Davis, (410) 786–6882.
In FR Doc. 2012–11548 (77FR 29034) of May 16, 2012, the final rule entitled “Reform of Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Conditions of Participation,” there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in the regulations text of this correcting amendment.
On page 29075 of the May 16, 2012
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the
For the reasons stated above, we find that both notice and comment and the 30-day delay in effective date for the correction notice are unnecessary. Therefore, we find there is good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in effective date for this correction notice.
Grant programs, Health, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter IV is corrected by making the following correcting amendments to part 482:
Secs. 1102, 1871 and 1881 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr), unless otherwise noted.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.
This final rule denies most aspects of a petition for reconsideration of a February 27, 2012, final rule that expanded the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for child restraint systems to child restraints sold for children weighing up to 36 kilograms (kg) (80 pounds (lb)). The petition stated, among other things, that a label that was required by the 2012 rule for certain child restraints was unclear and could be misunderstood. In response, NHTSA is making minor adjustments to the labeling requirement to make it clearer and more reader-friendly. For a year, manufacturers have the option of meeting the requirements of the February 27, 2012 rule or the rule as modified today. All other requests for substantive changes to the 2012 rule are denied.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by April 11, 2014.
If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. For information on the Privacy Act, see Rulemaking Analyses and Notices section.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
For technical issues, you may call Ms. Cristina Echemendia, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202–366–6345) (Fax: 202–493–2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202–366–2992) (Fax: 202–366–3820). The mailing address of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.
This final rule denies most aspects of a petition for reconsideration of a February 27, 2012, final rule (77 FR 11626) that expanded the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” from child restraint systems (CRSs) for children weighing up to 65 lb to CRSs for children weighing up to 80 lb. The final rule also adopted use of a 10-year-old child (10YO) test dummy (HIII–10C) to test CRSs manufactured for children weighing 65 to 80 lb. The test dummy weighs about 78 lb.
Generally speaking, in NHTSA's compliance test for FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA has the choice of assessing the performance of a CRS when installed on a bench seat by way of the simulated lower anchorages of the “child restraint anchorage system”
The information from the vehicle manufacturers was important to NHTSA in determining how we should use the new 10YO test dummy in compliance testing. After assessing all available information, NHTSA decided that it would not subject child restraints with internal harnesses to compliance testing using the 10YO test dummy while the CRS is attached by the child restraint anchorage system anchorages, since that scenario would be contrary to vehicle manufacturers' instructions for using child restraint anchorage systems and inconsistent with the design parameters of the anchorage system.
Furthermore, the agency determined that, given that NHTSA will not test a child restraint with the child restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly using the 10YO dummy for the above reasons, there is a need to inform consumers on the use of child restraint anchorage systems to reduce the likelihood that a CRS would be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the assessed performance of the harness-equipped CRS and the design limits of child restraint anchorage systems. Some new harness-equipped CRSs have been produced that are heavier than all CRSs made in the past, and some are recommended for children weighing more than 48 lb.
In the 2012 final rule, we adopted a labeling instruction informing consumers not to use the child restraint anchorage system when restraining a total weight of more than 65 lb.
NHTSA received a petition for reconsideration on the label from several consumer advocates.
Petitioners believe that when NHTSA developed FMVSS No. 225, the agency referred several times in the preamble to a child weight of 65 lb. Petitioners “surmise that FMVSS 213 [sic] rule was for anchors to be strong enough to accommodate [CRSs] that would in themselves weigh at least 15, possibly 20 pounds, which implies a combined weight of at least 80 to 85 lbs.” The petitioners state that “the decision to adopt 65 pounds as the combined maximum weight . . . will unnecessarily restrict the use of the LATCH system and force caregivers back to using seat belts for anchoring forward-facing [CRSs].” The petitioners also state that their intent in petitioning for reconsideration of the rule was to “minimize the likelihood that vehicle manufacturers will apply the same formula” to tether anchorages.
A number of persons sent letters or met with NHTSA in support of the petition for reconsideration or to ask questions about the labeling requirement.
Several of the letters and other submissions are summarized below.
Representatives from the Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel) and others met with NHTSA to express their view that the new labeling requirement reduces use of child restraint anchorage systems. They believe that the current status quo (current recommendations and practice) is to use child restraint anchorage systems for installing child restraints with internal harnesses for a child weight up to 48 lb. They also add that child safety seats now weigh between 15 to 33 lb, so the new label would exclude the use of child restraint anchorage systems for a “large” number of children who are still in harnessed-CRSs. They state that because child restraint anchorage systems are easier to use and have a higher rate of correct installation than seat belts, a child restraint anchorage system installation is safer than a belt installation. They suggest that in the short term, NHTSA should suspend the new label requirement, and that in the long term, NHTSA should increase the strength of the child restraint anchorage system.
Safe Ride News (SRN) wrote in a letter that the agency should suspend the labeling requirement because the label will “cause a lot of confusion” and affect public perception of the safety of child restraint anchorage systems “without improving actual safety in any significant way.” The letter writer believes that public education messages
The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) submitted a letter in support of Dorel's submission and Safe Ride News' letter, repeating many points of earlier correspondence.
An individual, Alisa Baer, wrote that introducing “strict lower anchor weight limits of CR + child = 65 pounds will further complicate” child restraint anchorage systems. The letter writer states that parents typically do not understand how fast a child grows and that a parent may opt not to use a CRS when their child is on the cusp of the weight limit out of fear that the child will soon outgrow the CRS, when in reality the child could have much more time before exceeding the weight limit. The writer states that “ugly numbers—like 37 or 41 [lb]—are scary to parents & technicians,” and “will likely erode confidence in the LATCH system” because people may “[think] `is the LATCH system so fragile that if the child was 38 pounds instead of 37 it might not hold in a crash?' ”
Consumers Union sent a letter stating that it was “worried that the new rules may encourage parents to secure heavier child seats using standard safety belts instead of the LATCH system.” Consumers Union states that “each CRS will still feature a different maximum recommended child weight limit, based on the differences between the seat's weight and the 65 lb limit of the lower LATCH anchors,” which, the letter writer believes, will confuse caregivers.
Diono
The Alliance submitted correspondence focused on the need for the label to address rear-facing child restraints equipped with an internal harness that are sold for heavier children, which are used without a tether. The Alliance highlights that it reviewed “some of the heavier 3-in-1 child restraints currently on the market, especially those which have been certified for use up to 40/45 lbs rearward-facing,” and notes that “a potential weight combination of up [sic] 73.8 lbs becomes apparent—without use of a tether.” The Alliance seeks “to ensure that the label is also applied to rear-facing child restraints.”
NHTSA also received correspondence from Graco asking that harness-equipped CRSs recommended for children up to 70 lb in weight should be excluded from the head excursion requirements if the CRS height restrictions do not accommodate the HIII–10C dummy.
Graco also raises a question about S5(f) of the final rule, which applies to harness-equipped CRSs. S5(f) refers to the weight of the test dummy used to test the CRS. Graco suggests that NHTSA publish a list of the weights for each test dummy to make it “easy for manufacturers to determine which [anthropomorphic test device] and CRS combinations need to be tested with each type of belt and provide more standardized results for consumers.”
NHTSA has evaluated all relevant issues presented above and has made the following decisions in responding to those issues.
NHTSA has determined that the information presented by the label in question is necessary to address a safety need. The information reduces the likelihood that consumers will use the child restraint anchorage system with a combined weight of child plus CRS weight too high for the anchorages in a crash. FMVSS No. 225 requires the anchorage system to withstand crash forces resulting from a combined (child+CRS) mass of 65 lb.
In an April 11, 2011 letter to NHTSA, the Alliance and Global Automakers expressed support for a label such as that adopted by the 2012 rule. These
The market has not provided the information consumers need. Vehicle and CRS users' manuals have conflicting or a lack of information on the maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use. Most vehicle manufacturers do not include a child weight limit for lower anchor use in their vehicle owner's manual. A 2011 manual developed by SRN, “LATCH Manual,”
Child restraint manufacturers' recommendations for using the child restraint anchorage system are also varied and generally unhelpful. NHTSA reviewed approximately 40 CRS manuals from different CRS manufacturers to see the current recommendations of CRS manufacturers. In our sample, Dorel and Evenflo did not specify a maximum child weight for use with the child restraint anchorage system. Graco and Recaro specified using the vehicle manufacturer's weight limits for use of the child restraint anchorage system and also specified a maximum child weight of 48 lb for use of the anchorages. Britax recommended that consumers follow vehicle manufacturers' instructions and that, if a vehicle manufacturer does not provide a limit, consumers should assume a 40 lb maximum child weight limit for lower anchors. Diono recommended use of the child restraint anchorage system for children weighing up to 65 lb (corresponding to the weight of a 50th percentile 9.5 year-old) and even, for some models, 80 lb (corresponding to the weight of a 50th percentile 11 year-old).
Since most vehicles do not specify a child weight limit for lower anchor use, and since CRS instruction manuals generally have no information (e.g., Dorel and Evenflo), refer to the vehicle owner's manual (Graco, Britax, Recaro), or have conflicting information on the child weight limit for using the lower anchorages (Graco, Recaro), many consumers are unaware or unsure as to the weight limits of child restraint anchorage systems. A consumer looking in the CRS manual might be referred to a non-existent vehicle owner's manual instruction on child weight limits for lower anchor use, or might be informed that the anchorage system may be used to a weight beyond the intended design limit of many if not most vehicles' anchorage systems.
This problematic situation can be fixed if the CRS has the required information about the weight limits. With the information, consumers will have convenient access to facts about the child weight limit for lower anchor use. A label with the information will provide clear and consistent information for determining the child weight limit for lower anchor use, which will be easily accessible to the caregiver at all times.
We do not believe that specifying a combined (child+CRS) weight limit in the vehicle owners' manual rather than on a CRS label would be as effective at communicating the information as placing a label on the CRS. First, the consumer will need to determine the weight of the CRS and then calculate the maximum child weight limit. We believe that these additional actions required by the consumer are unreasonable; the consumer is unlikely to take the step of assessing the CRS weight or may not bother to make the calculation. Second, a recent survey
We disagree with JPMA's and Diono's assertion that the label will result in lack of confidence in child restraint anchorage systems. We believe that the label will provide clear and consistent information on the use of child restraint anchorage systems and will thereby promote more trust in child restraint anchorage systems. More importantly, the information will virtually eliminate the risk of a failure of an anchorage system in attaching a CRS to the vehicle.
The petitioners state that they wish to “preserve the extended use of lower anchors.” They state that the preamble for the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 225 refers to a child weight of 65 lb, and that the intent of the agency in establishing the standard was “for anchors to be strong enough to accommodate CRs [sic] that would in themselves weigh at least 15, possibly 20 pounds, which implies a combined weight of at least 80 to 85 lbs.”
To illustrate, NHTSA explained the basis for FMVSS No. 225's 15 kN strength requirement in a 2003 document responding to petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the 1999 final rule. NHTSA stated that the agency based the strength requirement—
References to a “child” weight of 65 lb rather than to a “combined” weight in the 2010 SNPRM were in error, as the Alliance, JPMA and others have pointed out. Such references were imprecise and limited in describing the assumptions underlying the strength requirement of child restraint anchorage systems. The Alliance explained that the load calculations for the 15 kN strength requirement were based on a combined maximum (child+CRS) weight of 65 lb.
The present petitioners state that “What is proposed [sic] in the final rule, is, in effect, a major change of interpretation of anchor weight limits without any opportunity for assessment and comment that is usual in regulatory changes.”
This assertion is without merit. As explained above, the agency did not make a “change of interpretation of anchor weight limits” by basing the final rule on a combined child+CRS weight of 65 lb. A 65 lb combined weight limit was the established engineering basis for the strength requirement of FMVSS No. 225 from the beginning of the standard. The 2010 SNPRM was in error in referring to a child weight alone of 65 lb. The 2012 final rule remedied the error by referencing combined weight (child+CRS).
Moreover, the weight to which the label refers was an issue well within the scope of the present rulemaking. The question of the weight limits of child restraint anchorage systems and the safe use of the anchorage system with heavier children were crucial aspects of the 2010 SNPRM (see section VII.a. of the SNPRM, 75 FR at 71659). Upon proposing a label to inform consumers of the limits of the child restraint anchorage system, the SNPRM specifically asked for comment on the child weight variable: “Comments are requested on the label's reference to the 65 lb (29.5 kg) threshold.” 75 FR at 71659.
In addition, vehicle manufacturer groups (Alliance and Global Automakers) and JPMA commented on the SNPRM, informing NHTSA that the proposed wording that referred to a 65-lb child weight alone did not adequately account for the weight of the CRS and was thus providing incorrect information. NHTSA benefited from the comments and corrected the weight limit to reflect the weight of the child+CRS, as designed by FMVSS No. 225, in the final rule. The agency was not required to reissue another proposal for notice and comment to make this correction.
Diono believes that there is “much data from testing analysis that has shown lower anchors support total masses larger than the proposed limit of 30.5 kg” and states that it has data from its sled testing which “show that with a combined mass of 78 lbs to ~ 110 lbs the lower anchors see dynamic loads well within the dynamic capacity of the lower anchors.” Diono believes that its tests show that, with a combined child and child restraint weight of 80 lb, the dynamic loads on the anchors are in the range of 9 kN at each lower anchor. Diono also states that NHTSA has tested CRSs (some weighing 30 lb) for many years using the Hybrid III 6-year-old (HIII–6C) dummy weighing 48 lb (for a combined weight of 78 lb) as part of its compliance program with no anchorage failures. Based on this information, Diono concludes that there is a very safe margin with the use of lower anchorages for a combined child and CRS weight of 80 lb.
The agency disagrees that Diono's test data indicate that NHTSA should amend the labeling requirement in such a way that condones the use of the lower anchorages with a combined child and CRS weight of 80 lb. Diono's testing consisted of sled tests using the FMVSS No. 213 test bench and a sled pulse (47 G pulse and a 35 mph velocity) representing the crash pulse of a 2001 Toyota Echo in an NCAP frontal crash test. The docket submissions from Diono show that for sled tests performed with the 47 G pulse and combined child and CRS weight of 82 lb (65 lb dummy + estimated 17 lb CRS) and 97 lb (80 lb dummy + estimated 17 lb CRS), the peak total load on the child restraint anchorages were 25.7–27.3 kN. Those loads clearly exceed the 15 kN quasi-static load minimum strength requirement of the anchorage system per FMVSS No. 225.
Furthermore, while the Toyota Echo pulse at 48 G in an NCAP test was considered a severe pulse in early 2000s, current NCAP data shows that many recent vehicle models have stiffer front ends than the Echo, with peak accelerations in excess of 50 G.
Additionally, Diono's data are inadequate because the data were obtained from sled tests conducted with an FMVSS No. 213 test bench seat. The child restraint anchorage system bars on the bench seat are designed and constructed to withstand repeated loading in 30–35 mph sled tests, i.e., they are reinforced over and above the anchorages of actual vehicles. Diono did not provide any actual vehicle test data (static or dynamic). The strength of child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles is evaluated according to specifications in FMVSS No. 225, which include a quasi-static load test of 15 kN applied to the lower anchors and tethers and a quasi-static load test of 11 kN applied only to the lower anchors. The lack of anchorage failures on NHTSA's test bench does not indicate that real-world vehicles' anchorages are strong enough to hold the force generated by higher weight children.
Diono referred to Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 44 (ECE R.44), “Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven Vehicles,” and ECE R.14, “Safety Belt Anchorages, ISOFIX Anchorages, and Top Tether Anchorages,” stating that these regulations limit to 72.6 lb the combined weight of child and child restraint for ISOFIX use, even though ECE R.14 has slightly less stringent requirements on the ISOFIX anchors than FMVSS No. 225.
NHTSA does not find this view persuasive. For one thing, ECE R.44 limits the maximum child weight for CRSs with harnesses and CRSs equipped with ISOFIX to 40 lb, and specifies that the CRS weight be less than or equal to 33 lb. FMVSS No. 213 does not have such limitations on CRS design at this time. Thus, the overall risk of overloading the anchors in Europe is inherently lower than in the
Second, no showing has been made by Diono that the ECE requirements are sufficient to meet the safety need in the U.S. that is met by FMVSS No. 225. In a 2010 Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) contract report, Hynd et al.
Diono also states that the 2012 final rule's labeling requirement on lower anchor use contradicts Transport Canada's recent update of Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” which permits the use of lower anchors to install child restraints with harnesses for children weighing up to 65 lb.
We do not agree. Transport Canada has yet to consider the recent updates to FMVSS No. 213 incorporating the 10-year-old dummy for testing child restraints. We expect Canada to have similar issues as the U.S. regarding child restraint misuse, incorrect installations, and consumer confusion as to the child restraint anchorage systems. Transport Canada may be considering the merits of the label in the future.
The petitioners request that NHTSA “provide any test or field data suggesting the need for a reinterpretation of the original statement that FMVSS 225 was devised for a child weighing 65 to 80 . . . lbs.” As explained above, FMVSS No. 225 was developed to ensure that crash forces generated by a 65 lb
Nonetheless, there are empirical data on this issue. There has been failure of a child restraint anchorage system in testing conducted by Transport Canada (30–35 mph) involving full frontal rigid barrier crash tests of model year (MY) 2009 and 2010 vehicles. Transport Canada placed child restraints in the outboard rear seating positions using the child restraint anchorage system (including the top tether).
The failure occurred in a 35 mph frontal crash test of a 2010 Kia Forte with the HIII–10C dummy restrained in Safety 1st Apex 65 child restraint. The CRS was installed in the right outboard rear seat with lower and top tether anchorages. The CRS weighed about 13 lb. The combined weight (child+CRS) in this test was 90 lb, the peak vehicle acceleration was 46 G. The total maximum anchorage loads measured in this test was 20,395 N. During the test, the inboard anchor, which was held in place by two bolts, pulled through the sheet metal resulting in a failure at the attachment point. The anchorage failure demonstrates a finite limit to the strength of the child restraint anchorages.
We are concerned that there are factors in play that have developed in recent years that raise the possibility that the limits of the child restraint anchorage system will be surpassed in more and more vehicles by the ordinary use of modern day CRSs in modern vehicles if measures are not in place to prevent this from happening. CRSs with internal harnesses are being produced that are recommended for children weighing 65 lb or more. The average weight of CRSs was 15 lb when FMVSS No. 225 was first issued; now CRSs are marketed that weigh more than 30 lb. Further, the strength requirements of the child restraint anchorage system were based on a 48 g vehicle acceleration, which is a level being surpassed among current vehicle models in a 35 mph frontal crash. In contrast, there are vehicle models in the current fleet that have peak vehicle acceleration in excess of 50 g in a 35 mph frontal crash.
Also presented in the Appendix in Tables A1(a) and A1(b) are the results of NHTSA's computed maximum total inertial loads on the child restraint anchorage system (F) using the combined weight of the child dummy and the CRS (m) and the peak vehicle acceleration (a),
Almost all of the tests showed the integrity of present day child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles. The relatively low rate of anchorage failures in the Transport Canada vehicle crash tests may be because many vehicle manufacturers are designing the child restraint anchorage systems to be stronger than that required by FMVSS No. 225; the anchorage loads from the combined CRS+dummy weight and the peak vehicle acceleration were within the strength capabilities of vehicle anchorages.
Diono suggests a combined child+CRS weight limit of 80 lb. We believe that this suggestion raises an unreasonable risk that the lower anchorages would be overloaded, resulting in anchorage failure. The computed total child restraint anchorage load for a peak
Another matter of concern to us is the low usage rate of the tether anchor and how nonuse of the tether, among other things, results in higher loads being imposed on the lower anchorages. Our survey data
The agency selected two 35 mph, 35 g and 100 millisecond (ms) pulses to simulate a frontal crash. One of the pulses was front loaded while the second one was rear loaded (see Figure 1).
The agency specifically selected the Kia Forte because of the lower anchorage failure observed in the vehicle crash test conducted by Transport Canada (discussed in the previous section). Transport Canada's tests used the Safety 1st Apex 65 CRS (approximately 13 lb) and the HIII–10C dummy (77 lb), for a combined weight of about 90 lb. VRTC's test used the same Safety 1st CRS model and a weighted HIII–6C dummy (66 lb), for a combined weight of approximately 79 lb.
VRTC conducted a sled test with the Kia Forte buck and a front loaded sled pulse (shown in Figure 1), with the CRS installed in the right rear outboard seating position using the lower anchors and the top tether. Post-test evaluation showed some deformation of the sheet metal with some forward pull of the lower anchorages but not a complete failure of the anchorages. The total anchorage loads (lower anchors+tether) was measured to be 17,330 N and the total load on the lower anchors (inboard+outboard) was 11,666 N (See Table A2 in the Appendix). However, VRTC later conducted another test, identical to the first except the tether was not attached. In that test, there was complete failure of the lower anchor
NHTSA has reviewed all the sled tests conducted at VRTC (three child restraints in two vehicle bucks) and has determined that the ratio of lower anchor loads (when the tether is not attached) to lower anchor loads (when the tether is attached) ranges from 1.3 to 1.6. That is, these sled test results indicate that the loads on the lower anchorages are 30–60 percent higher when the tether is not used to install the CRS than when the full child restraint anchorage system (lower anchors+tether anchor) are used to install the CRS.
Thus, in further answer to Diono and others as to why we disagree with the suggested approach to increase weights to 80 lb, there is evidence of lower anchor failure when the tether was not attached at a combined weight of only 78 lb. Since we have evidence that 30 percent of forward-facing child restraints installed using the lower anchorages do not have the tether attached in the real world,
The petitioners would like to “preserve the extended use of lower anchors.” Ms. Baer said in correspondence to NHTSA that “ugly numbers—like 37 or 41 [lb]—are scary to parents & technicians,” and “will likely erode confidence in the LATCH system.” Consumers Union stated its belief that it will confuse caregivers when “each CRS will still feature a different maximum recommended child weight limit, based on the differences between the seat's weight and the 65 lb limit of the lower LATCH anchors.”
First, we agree with the view that the wording of the label specified in the 2012 final rule could lead consumers to misunderstand the instruction, remove the harness from the CRS before they should, or otherwise not follow the instruction. NHTSA is thus amending S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of the 2012 final rule to remove the instruction from that section. Instead, the instruction will be placed on a diagram that FMVSS No. 213 presently requires to be on CRSs under S5.5.2(l) of the standard. S5.5.2(l)(3) requires CRSs to be labeled with an installation diagram showing the CRS installed in a seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage system (S5.5.2(l)(3)). We are adding a provision to S5.5.2(l)(3) to specify that a statement about child weight be included with the diagram.
The statement consists of a phrase, “Do not install by this method for a child weighing more than * lb.” The “*” value is the difference between 65 lb and the CRS weight, as discussed in the 2012 final rule. Alternatively, as discussed in the next section, the “*” value may be rounded up, subject to certain conditions.
An example of the installation diagram with the information for the child weight limit for lower anchor use and for promoting tether use is shown below in Figure 2.
The advantage of using the diagram is that it separates the child weight limit for lower anchor use from all the other information on the label in S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) and puts it in a location where relevant installation information is provided. It is also advantageous to use diagrams over words to communicate information. The instruction on weight limits is concise and clear. This change will add more clarity regarding the child weight limits and will also be easily available to the caregiver installing the CRS.
Second, NHTSA concurs that the uniquely specific weight values provided on each CRS, based on the difference between 65 lb and the actual weight of the CRS, could be confusing to some consumers. For this reason, the agency is amending the final rule to add some flexibility in the maximum child weight calculation so that the label could be rounded up to display a child weight that is a multiple of five lb, which will be easier for consumers to remember, possibly less confusing to them, and appropriate from a safety point of view. This “rounding up” of
To provide this flexibility, the agency balanced the merits of allowing the child weight limit to be rounded up with the need to avoid an unreasonable risk of potentially overloading the anchorages. We also recognized the need to give different accommodation for CRSs in the forward-facing and rearward-facing modes.
NHTSA is amending the February 27, 2012 final rule to permit CRS manufacturers some flexibility in the calculated child weight limit for use with child restraint anchorage systems. We are retaining the requirement that the CRS must specify a maximum child weight for lower anchor use unique to each CRS model. Under the 2012 final rule, the maximum child weight that must be specified on the label is less than or equal to the difference between 65 lb and the weight of the CRS in pounds. Under today's final rule, that requirement is retained, but we are also providing manufacturers an option of rounding the value up to the next multiple of 5 lb. We are adding a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that specifies a lookup table for the maximum child weight limit in multiples of 5 lb for different weight ranges (65 − CRS weight (lb)) and are providing manufacturers the option of employing the table to round up the child weights. See Table 1, below.
We recognize that there is a possibility that this amendment will permit a manufacturer to indicate a child weight limit on the label that, when combined with the CRS weight, the combined (child+CRS weight limit) could marginally exceed 65 lb. For instance, if the CRS weighed 19 lb, then x = 65 lb minus 19 lb = 46 lb; rounding up results in a child weight limit on the label) = 50 lb. This would lead to a combined (CRS + child) weight = 50 lb + 19 lb = 69 lb. Although this combined weight is greater to a slight degree than 65 lb, we believe this situation is acceptable for the following reasons.
First, data indicate that vehicles are equipped with child restraint anchorage systems (lower anchorages plus tether anchorage) that sufficiently surpass the minimum strength requirement of FMVSS No. 225 such that the anchorages will withstand crash forces generated by a combined (child+CRS) weight of 70 lb. NHTSA performed quasi-static tests on the child restraint anchorages in eleven MY 2006–2011
Among the 11 MY 2006–2011 vehicle models tested, 19 lower anchor sets (comprising two lower anchor bars) and 27 tether anchors were subjected to quasi-static loads. Of these, 14 lower anchor sets had strengths greater or equal to 20 kN, and all the tether anchors had strengths greater than 10 kN. Among the 18 MY 2013 vehicle models tested, 37 lower anchor sets and 46 tether anchors were subjected to quasi-static loads, among which 24 lower anchor sets had strengths greater than 20 kN and 25 tether anchors had strengths greater than 10 kN.
The test results are set forth in a technical document placed in the docket. All in all, the results indicate that the quasi-static lower anchorage strength in current vehicles is significantly higher that required by FMVSS No. 225. The lowest force that produced lower anchor failure was 19.7 kN (2010 Kia Forte).
Second, although there is no consistent and direct correlation between dynamic to static strength of anchorage systems and the dynamic to static strength ratio is vehicle specific, data show that child restraint anchorage systems are able to withstand higher loads dynamically than statically. Our test data demonstrate that the dynamic strength of the child restraint anchorage systems (lower anchors+tether anchor) in our tests was greater than the 15 kN load required by FMVSS No. 225. In the Alliance's petition for reconsideration of the strength requirements of the 1999 final rule, the Alliance indicated that the quasi-static test load of FMVSS No. 225 simulating a high-speed impact should be approximately 50 percent of the expected dynamic load.
Rear-facing CRSs typically do not have a top tether attachment. When FMVSS No. 225 became effective in 1999, rear-facing child restraints were generally recommended for children weighing up to 20 lb. Currently in the market, there are “3-in-1” child restraints that alone weigh more than 20 lb that are recommended to use rear-facing with children weighing up to 45 lb. Thus, for these CRSs, the combined weight of CRS and the maximum weight of child recommended for the CRS exceeds 65 lb. Since these rear-facing child restraints are only attached using the lower anchorages without a tether, the lower anchorages are subjected to greater loads in a crash than if a similar weight child and CRS were in the forward-facing mode with the tether attached.
In its correspondence sent to the agency, the Alliance requested that NHTSA make clear that the label limiting the combined (child+CRS) weight to 65 lb for lower anchor use also must be placed on rear-facing child restraints.
In response, we agree to reiterate that the labeling requirement of the February 2012 final rule applies to those CRSs using lower anchorages in the rear-facing mode. There is good reason for the applicability to these CRSs, as the safety need addressed by the label is relevant to rear-facing CRSs as it is to forward-facing CRSs. However, we believe that the combined child+CRS weight should not exceed 65 lb for CRSs in the rear-facing mode under any circumstances, unlike the potential 70 lb limit for forward-facing restraints using the 3-point anchorage attachment (lower anchors plus tether anchor). This is because FMVSS No. 225 requires the minimum strength of lower anchorages alone to be only 11 kN (compared to the 15 kN strength of the full 3-point anchorage system).
Accordingly, manufacturers of covered rear-facing CRSs must specify a maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use. (Again, the covered CRSs are those that are recommended for use in the rear-facing mode, for which the combined weight of the CRS and the maximum recommended child weight for the rear-facing mode exceeds 65 lb.) We are retaining the provision that each covered CRS must be labeled with the maximum child weight for use with the lower anchors, which is less than or equal to the difference between 65 lb and the weight of the CRS in pounds. The CRS manufacturer is to provide the child weight on the installation diagram specified by S5.5.2(l).
However, under today's final rule, we are also providing manufacturers an alternative of using a maximum child weight value that is a multiple of 5 lb by way of a lookup table. This alternative is adopted to enable manufacturers to avoid displaying an “ugly number” for the child weight. We are adding a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that specifies the lookup table for the maximum child weight limit in multiples of 5 lb for different weight ranges (60 − CRS weight (lb)) and are providing manufacturers the option of employing the table to obtain the maximum child weight limit. The maximum child weight limit is based on a calculation of 60 lb minus the weight of the CRS. We are using 60 lb rather than 65 lb as a starting point to ensure that the rounded value does not exceed 65 lb. This is important because for rear-facing restraints, the top tether will not be employed so the lower anchorages will be experiencing more crash forces than the full child restraint anchorage system. See Table 2, below.
Based on our testing experience, we believe that a set of minimally compliant lower anchorages (with a quasi-static strength of 11 kN) has sufficient dynamic strength to withstand inertial loads from a combined weight of 65 lb in a 35 mph frontal crash.
For CRSs that have a rear-facing and forward-facing mode with internal harnesses, we prefer that the CRS provide installation diagrams in both modes along with a corresponding maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use, if such a limit is required. However, we are not requiring installation diagrams in both modes at this time. If a CRS manufacturer only provides one installation diagram and if a child weight limit is required in only one of the modes (rear-facing or forward-facing), then the diagram shall depict the installation in that particular mode along with the corresponding child weight limit. Alternatively, if a child weight limit is required in both modes and only one installation diagram is provided, then the child weight limit is either less than or equal to the difference between 65 and the CRS weight (lb) or the lesser of the child weight limits determined by way of Table 1 for the forward-facing mode and Table 2 for the rear-facing mode.
The petitioners express concern that the 65 lb combined maximum weight limit “will unnecessarily restrict the use of the LATCH system and force caregivers back to using seat belts for anchoring forward-facing” child restraints.
We do not agree that the new label will significantly reduce the number of CRSs that are installed with the lower anchorages of child restraint anchorage systems. Currently, technicians at child seat inspection stations recommend use of the child restraint anchorage system for children weighing between 40–48 lb, which corresponds to about a 6-year-old (see Table 3, below).
The agency found no infant carriers for which the combined CRS+child weight (CRS weight + maximum child weight recommended for infant seat) exceeded 65 lb; therefore, no infant carrier will currently need the label.
Among 46 CRS convertible and 3-in-1 models which can be used in rear-facing mode, only 4 CRS models (8.7 percent) had a combined child+CRS weight (maximum child weight + CRS weight recommended for rear-facing mode) in excess of 65 lb, which requires a label specifying the maximum child weight for lower anchor use (See Table A3 in the Appendix to this preamble). Among these 4 CRSs, one CRS weighs 33.8 lb with a recommended child weight in rear-facing mode of 40 lb, and the remaining 3 CRSs weighed between 22.3–25.8 lb with a recommended child weight in rear-facing mode of 45 lb.
Permitting the calculated child weight limit to be a multiple of 5 lb will result in values that will be easier for the consumer to understand. The agency will incorporate this label in education material so that consumers are aware that there is a maximum child weight limit for lower anchor use and to look for this information on the CRS.
Field data show that harness-equipped CRSs are not now being widely used by consumers for children weighing more than 50 lb. The agency analyzed data from the National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS)
Since rear-facing harness-equipped CRSs are now designed for older/heavier children, the agency also used the NCRUSS survey to explore how these CRSs are used in the field. The NCRUSS survey show that 83.4 percent of children in rear-facing convertible or all-in-one seats (both of which are equipped with harnesses) weighed 25 lb or less, 13.2 percent weighed 26 to 30 lb, 3.2 percent weighed 30 to 35 lb (corresponding to a 50th percentile 4-year-old or 75th percentile 3-year-old), and 0.2 percent weighed more than 35 lb. The NCRUSS survey also show that 85.1 percent of children in rear-facing infant seats weighed 25 lb (corresponding to a 50th percentile 18 month old) or less, 13.9 percent weighed 26 to 30 lb,
The petitioners state that “the decision to adopt 65 pounds as the combined maximum weight . . . will unnecessarily restrict the use of the LATCH system and force caregivers back to using seat belts for anchoring forward-facing [CRSs].” JPMA states that CRSs might not achieve a tight fit with a seat belt or may be too difficult to install with a seat belt and that parents might not know to switch to the seat belt during the several-year course of a CRS's use. Dorel states that child restraint anchorage systems are easier to use and have a higher rate of correct installation than seat belts, so an installation by the former is safer than a belt installation.
The arguments that new seat belt designs are incompatible with CRS installation are speculative. Views are evolving regarding the compatibility of new belt designs, such as inflatable seat belts, with CRS installation. For instance, Britax initially recommended against CRS installation using inflatable belts, but has changed its mind and now permits CRS installations with the belts. We do not have reason to believe that seat belts with advanced technologies cannot be designed to install CRSs. We also note that SAE J1819 is undergoing revisions to improve compatibility of seat belts and child restraint anchorages with CRSs.
Regarding Dorel's statement, NHTSA believes that the statement is not germane to the issue of the design limits of child restraint anchorage systems. If the anchorages are used in a manner that results in material failure because the design limits of the anchorage system were exceeded, the child passenger is at risk regardless of the relative ease of using child restraint anchorage systems or the tightness of the installation of CRSs on the anchorages.
The petitioners also state that their intent in petitioning for reconsideration of the rule was to “minimize the likelihood that vehicle manufacturers will apply the same formula” to tether anchorages. Issues relating to weight limits for the top tether anchorage are out of scope of this rulemaking.
The petitioners believe that NHTSA should require vehicle manufacturers to increase the strength of child restraint anchorage systems to accommodate a higher combined weight. This issue is out of scope of this rulemaking.
Graco requests that the 10YO test dummy only be used to test CRSs when the dummy fits in the seat as per the manufacturer's recommended usage. Graco states that it produces a harness-equipped CRS recommended for a 70 lb child, but limits the recommended seated height of the child occupant and limits the head height relative to the seat. Graco asks that the 10YO dummy not be used to evaluate performance of the CRS if the dummy exceeds the recommended limits on seating height. Graco believes that in the real world, the seat would not be used with a child of this stature, and as a result, the 10YO dummy may give inaccurate readings. Alternatively, Graco suggests that the dummy be used to evaluate CRSs to assess structural integrity, chest resultant, and knee excursion limits but not the head excursion requirement. Graco states that the head excursion measurement resulting from the use of the 10YO dummy would not represent the real world due to the dummy being significantly taller than the recommended child occupant.
The agency is denying Graco's request. It is not in the public interest to exclude testing those CRSs recommended for children of a weight range represented by the 10YO dummy but whose height may be lower than that of the dummy.
The agency indirectly addressed this issue in the rulemaking. In the 2008 SNPRM (73 FR 3908), we had considered whether FMVSS No. 213 should expressly require that each CRS be capable of fitting the test dummy that is specified in S7 of the standard to evaluate the CRS. The agency only received comments from JPMA, which stated that child restraints are designed to accommodate the dummies with which they will be tested and that an explicit “fit” requirement is not required. After reviewing the comment, the agency decided not to pursue a fit requirement, assuming it was not needed because manufacturers already ensure that CRSs accommodate/fit the appropriate child dummies.
Graco is now indicating that a CRS it has produced is recommended for children represented by the 10YO dummy weight-wise, but does not fit the dummy height-wise. We do not believe it would be in the interest of safety to exclude the CRS from testing with the 10YO dummy, or exclude the CRS from a performance requirement, because the CRS does not actually fit the dummy. We believe that a better approach would be to subject the CRS to testing with the dummy if the manufacturer recommends the CRS for use with children represented by the dummy, as designated by S7 of FMVSS No. 213.
We have not been provided with any compelling information to exclude Graco's CRS from testing with the dummy. Graco has the option to lower the child weight recommendation of the CRS in question from 70 lb to 65 lb to avoid testing with the dummy, or it could continue to market the CRS for children over 65 lb and ensure that the CRS meets the FMVSS No. 213 requirements when tested with the 10YO (such as by redesigning the CRS to have a harness slot that can properly accommodate the 10YO dummy and/or making any structural changes needed to ensure integrity and performance using this dummy).
The February 2012 final rule adopted a provision (S5(f)) that basically excludes CRSs equipped with an internal harness from FMVSS No. 213 while attached to the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system under certain circumstances. The circumstances are: The test dummy used to test the CRS is of a weight such that the dummy's weight plus the CRS weight exceeds 65 lb. In a March 29, 2012 letter on this provision, Graco states that:
[T]esting will be required with LATCH if the combined ATD and CRS weight is under the 65 lb limit. Therefore, the weight of the ATD will be important in determining what testing is required for any CRS. Since ATD weights vary and the addition of clothing, shoes, and instrumentation can add significant weight to the ATD, . . . [NHTSA should] publish a list of the useful weight for each ATD to be used for testing.
In response, NHTSA agrees that the provision in the 2012 final rule implies a need for information on the test dummy weights. However, as Graco notes, the test dummy weights vary, and the addition of clothing, shoes, and instrumentation (the weights for which are not specified in NHTSA's regulations) can affect the “weight” of the test dummy and add undue uncertainty to the test provisions of the standard. Uncertainty results from variability in the weight of the dummy due to variances in the clothing, shoes, and instrumentation used with a particular dummy. We conclude that, to avoid this uncertainty, S5(f) should be slightly revised to move from a reference of “a test dummy of a weight” to “the average weight of the child represented by the test dummy.” The average weight of the child represented by the dummy can be specified in FMVSS No. 213—which NHTSA is specifying in this final rule
Using the average child weight represented by the test dummy eliminates the variability of dummy weights due to differences in instrumentation and clothing. The average child weights are within the weight range for dummy selection specified in S7.1.2 and so would not change the method of testing CRSs. In addition, using the average child weight in the referenced table ensures that the child restraint system is tested using lower anchors with the test dummy closest to the maximum child weight limit on the label for lower anchor use.
An example illustrating this is as follows. If a CRS weighing 19 lb has a label specifying 50 lb as the maximum child weight for lower anchor use, this CRS will be tested using the lower anchors with the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy. The average weight of the child represented by this test dummy is 45 lb.
The agency has considered the impact of this regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. This rulemaking is also not significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
This response to a petition for reconsideration mostly denies the petition. The few changes that are being made are minor, mostly to clarify a labeling requirement and to provide
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small organizations and small governmental units will not be significantly affected since the potential cost impacts associated with this final rule will not significantly affect the price of child restraints.
This final rule denies most of the petition for reconsideration of the February 2012 final rule. To the extent we are amending the original final rule, the amendments are minor, mostly to clarify a labeling requirement, and adequate lead time is provided. The cost of revising the label is minimal.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would 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.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle or equipment manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle or equipment manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle or equipment manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle or equipment manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly 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. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
NHTSA has provided a 60-day comment period (77 FR at 11645) and a 30-day comment period (78 FR at 77554) on the collection of information requirement in the previous final rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
NHTSA has reviewed available information and has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this rulemaking.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 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 more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than $100 million annually.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.
The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (P. L. 111–274) and Executive Order 12866 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
—Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
—Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to NHTSA at the
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all material received into any of our dockets, including petitions for reconsideration of this rule (a copy of which will be placed in the docket), by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
S5 * * *
(f) Each child restraint system that is equipped with an internal harness or other internal components to restrain the child need not meet this standard when attached to the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly if the sum of the weight of the child restraint system (in pounds) and the average weight of child represented by the test dummy used to test the child restraint in accordance with S7 of this standard, shown in the table below, exceeds 65 pounds. Such a child restraint must meet this standard when tested using its internal harness or components to restrain such a test dummy while installed using the standard seat belt assembly specified in S5.3.2 of this standard.
S5.5.2 * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child restraint anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt. [For car beds, harnesses, and belt positioning seats, the first part of the statement regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage system is optional.] [For belt-positioning seats, the second part of the statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt does not apply.] [For child restraints manufactured from February 27, 2014 to February 26, 2015, the following statement applies.] Child restraint systems equipped with internal harnesses to restrain the child and with components to attach to a child restraint anchorage system and for which the combined weight of the child restraint system and the maximum recommended child weight for use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with the following statement: “Do not use the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than * [*insert a recommended weight value in English and metric units such that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the internal harnesses of the child restraint.”
(l) * * *
(3) A seating position equipped with a child restraint anchorage system. For child restraint systems manufactured on or after February 27, 2015, the following paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and (ii) apply, as appropriate.
(i) If the child restraint is designed to meet the requirements of this standard when installed by the child restraint anchorage system according to S5.3.2, and if the sum of the weight of the child restraint and the maximum child weight recommended for the child restraint when used with the restraint's internal harness or components is greater than 65 lb when used forward-facing or rear-facing, include the following statement on this installation diagram: “Do not install by this method for a child weighing more than *.” At the manufacturer's option, “*” is the child weight limit in English units in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(A)(i), (ii), or (iii). The corresponding child weight limit in metric units may also be included in the statement at the manufacturer's option.
(A) For forward-facing and rear-facing child restraints, * is less than or equal to 65 minus child restraint weight (pounds).
(B) For forward-facing child restraints, * is the child weight limit specified in the following table corresponding to the value CW, calculated as 65 minus child restraint weight (pounds).
(C) For rear-facing child restraints, * is the child weight limit specified in the following table corresponding to the value CW, calculated as 60 minus child restraint weight (pounds).
(ii) For child restraints designed to meet the requirements of this standard when installed forward-facing and rear-facing by the child restraint anchorage system according to S5.3.2, the following applies:
(A) If separate installation diagrams are provided for the child restraint installed forward-facing and rear-facing, S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) applies to each of the installation diagrams.
(B) If only one installation diagram is provided and if a statement specifying a child weight limit is required in only rear-facing or forward-facing mode pursuant to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i), then the diagram shall depict installation in that mode along with the corresponding child weight limit in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i).
(C) If a statement specifying a child weight limit is required for the child restraint installed forward-facing and rear-facing pursuant to S5.5.2(l)(3)(i) and only one installation diagram is provided, then the child weight limit shall be in accordance with S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(A) or the lesser of the child weight limits described in S5.5.2(l)(3)(i)(B) and (C).
S5.6.1.12(a)
(b)
The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; adjustment of annual catch limits.
NMFS announces a transfer of unused quota for the remainder of the 2013 fishing year (FY) of Georges Bank (GB) and Southern New England/Mid Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder from the Atlantic scallop fishery to the Northeast (NE) multispecies fishery. This action is being taken because the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocation of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. The intent is to provide additional harvest opportunity to the NE multispecies fishery while ensuring sufficient amounts of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder are available for the scallop fishery.
Effective February 20, 2014, through April 30, 2014.
Liz Sullivan, Fisheries Management Specialist, (978) 282–8493.
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(C) authorize the Regional Administrator (RA) to reduce the scallop fishery sub-ACL to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish fishery sub-ACL up to the amount reduced from the scallop fishery if, by January 15 of each year, the scallop fishery is expected to catch less than 90 percent of its GB or SNE/MA yellowtail flounder sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL). This adjustment is intended to help achieve optimum yield, while not threatening an overage of the ACLs for the stocks.
Based on the most current available data, NMFS projects that the scallop fishery will have unused quota in the 2013 fishing year (FY). Although for the first time starting in FY 2013, three Scallop Access Areas will remain open during the month of February, NMFS' analysis assumed similar scallop fleet effort and behavior to past years. It is possible that the additional open areas will increase effort and potentially result in higher yellowtail flounder bycatch. However, NMFS accounted for this uncertainty by using the high-end estimates of the catch projections. As of January 15, the projections indicate that the scallop fishery is expected to catch 41.5 mt of GB yellowtail, or 49.8 percent of its FY 2013 sub-ACL, and 43.6 mt of SNE/MA yellowtail, or 71.4 percent of its FY 2013 sub-ACL. Because the scallop fishery is not expected to catch its entire allocation of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, this rule transfers the unused quota for the remainder of the 2013 FY of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder from the Atlantic scallop fishery to the NE multispecies fishery. The intent is to provide additional harvest opportunity to the NE multispecies fishery while ensuring sufficient amounts of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder are available for the scallop fishery.
Based on the new projections of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch by the scallop fishery, effective February 20, 2014, through April 30, 2014, NMFS reduces the scallop sub-ACL for both stocks to the amount projected to be caught, and increases the groundfish sub-ACLs. To account for uncertainty in inseason catch projections, NMFS increases the groundfish sub-ACLs by 90 percent of the amount reduced from the scallop sub-ACLs. This results in an additional 37.7 mt of GB yellowtail flounder, and 15.7 mt of SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, for the groundfish fishery. Table 1 summarizes the revisions to the FY 2013 sub-ACLs, and Table 2 shows the revised allocations for the NE multispecies fishery as allocated between the sectors and common pool based on final sector membership for FY 2013.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the management measures implemented in this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the NE multispecies fishery and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment for this in season sub-ACL adjustment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The regulations at § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(C) grant the RA authority to reduce the scallop fishery sub-ACL to the amount projected to be caught, and increase the groundfish sub-ACL by 90 percent of the amount reduced from the scallop sub-ACLs in order to maximize the GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder yield. The updated projections of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch in the scallop fishery only became available on January 15, 2014, therefore NMFS could not have taken this action earlier. In addition, the current fishing year ends on April 30, 2014. If NMFS allowed for the time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, the resulting delay in the sub-ACL adjustments could prevent in the short-term NE multispecies vessels from fully harvesting GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch at higher rates and potentially prevent the full harvest of the sub-ACLs of other groundfish stocks that are caught coincidentally with GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder before the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2014. Given the significant decreases in catch limits for many groundfish stocks in FY 2013, any delay in increasing such limits through this transfer could prevent fishermen from attempting to offset their current negative economic circumstances. Giving effect to this rule as soon as possible will provide immediate relief to fishermen.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator also finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action for these same reasons. This rule provides additional harvest opportunity to the NE multispecies fishery while ensuring sufficient amounts of GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder are available for the scallop fishery. A delay in the sub-ACL adjustments could prevent in the short-term, given the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2014, NE multispecies vessels from fully harvesting GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder catch at higher rates and potentially prevent the full harvest of the sub-ACLs of other groundfish stocks that are caught coincidentally with GB and SNE/MA yellowtail flounder. Further, there is no need to allow the industry additional time to adjust to this rule because it does not require any compliance or other action on the part of individual scallop or groundfish fishermen.
Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible growers and processors of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order that regulates the handling of tart cherries produced in the production area.
The referendum will be conducted from March 10 through March 28, 2014. To vote in this referendum, growers and processors must have produced or processed tart cherries within the designated production area during the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the referendum agents at 799 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, FL 33884, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or internet:
Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 799 Overlook Drive, Winter Haven, FL 33884; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Pursuant to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, as amended (7 CFR Part 930), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by growers and processors. The referendum shall be conducted from March 10 through March 28, 2014, among tart cherry growers and processors in the production area. Only tart cherry growers and processors currently engaged in the production or processing of tart cherries that produced or processed tart cherries during the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, may participate in the continuance referendum.
USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether producers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. The order would continue in effect if at least 50 percent of the growers and processors voting, by number or volume, vote in favor of continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to growers, processors, and consumers in determining whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the ballot materials to be used in the referendum have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581–0177 (Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin). It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 600 growers and 40 processors of tart cherries to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after March 28, 2014, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Jennie M. Varela and Christian D. Nissen of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400–900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all growers and processors of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents, or from their appointees.
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Potato Committee (Committee) for the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0045 to $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of potatoes grown in certain designated counties in
Comments must be received by March 27, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 98 and Order No. 945, both as amended (7 CFR part 945), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in certain designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable potatoes beginning August 1, 2014, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0045 to $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes.
The Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2013–2014 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on November 21, 2013, to consider the Committee's projected 2014–2015 budget, the size of the Committee's operating reserve, and the order's continuing assessment rate. The Committee unanimously recommended an assessment rate of $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes for the 2014–2015 fiscal period. The assessment rate of $0.0025 is $0.002 lower than the rate currently in effect. The assessment rate decrease is necessary to reduce the funds held in reserve to less than approximately one fiscal period's budgeted expenses, the maximum level allowed by the order.
The Committee expects to recommend budgeted expenditures of $112,883 for the 2014–2015 fiscal period at its next scheduled meeting in June of 2014. In comparison, 2013–2014 budgeted expenditures were $101,662. The major expenditures projected by the Committee for the 2014–2015 fiscal period include $62,743 for administrative expenses; $35,140 for travel/office expenses; and $15,000 for a marketing order contingency fund. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013–2014 were $62,022, $35,640, and $4,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes. Potato shipments for 2014–2015 are estimated at 32 million hundredweight which should provide $80,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with reimbursed expenses, interest earned, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (projected to be $168,084 on July 31, 2014) would be reduced to comply with the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's expenses.
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 450 producers of potatoes in the production area and approximately 32 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.
During the 2012–2013 fiscal period, the most recent for which statistics are available, 35,148,900 hundredweight of Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes were inspected under the order and sold into the fresh market. Based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for the 2012 Idaho potato crop was $6.55 per hundredweight. Multiplying $6.55 by the shipment quantity of 35,148,900 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $230,225,295. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 450 producers is therefore calculated to be $511,612 ($230,225,295 divided by 450), which is less than the Small Business Administration's threshold of $750,000. Consequently, on average most all of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato producers may be classified as small entities.
In addition, based on information reported by USDA's Market News Service, the average f.o.b. shipping point price for the 2012 Idaho potato crop was $5.87 per hundredweight. Multiplying $5.87 by the shipment quantity of 35,148,900 hundredweight yields an annual crop revenue estimate of $206,324,043. The average annual fresh potato revenue for each of the 32 handlers is therefore calculated to be $6,447,626 ($206,324,043 divided by 32), which is less than the Small Business Administration's threshold of $7,000,000. Consequently, on average most all of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014–2015 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0045 to $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended an assessment rate of $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes for the 2014–2015 fiscal period. The assessment rate of $0.0025 is $0.002 lower than the 2013–2014 rate. The quantity of assessable potatoes for the 2014–2015 fiscal period is estimated at 32 million hundredweight. Thus, the $0.0025 rate should provide $80,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with reimbursed expenses, interest earned, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The Committee expects to recommend $112,883 in budgeted expenditures for the 2014–2015 fiscal period at its next scheduled meeting in June of 2014. In comparison, 2013–2014 budgeted expenditures were $101,662. The major expenditures projected by the Committee for the 2014–2015 year include $62,743 for administrative expenses; $35,140 for travel/office expenses; and $15,000 for the marketing order contingency fund. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013–2014 were $62,022, $35,640, and $4,000, respectively.
The lower assessment rate is necessary to reduce the reserve balance to less than approximately one fiscal period's budgeted expenses. The reserve balance on July 31, 2014, is projected to be $168,084. Assessment income for the 2014–2015 fiscal period is estimated at $80,000, while expenses are estimated to be $112,883. The Committee anticipates compensating for the reduced assessment revenue with $4,300 from reimbursed expenses, $100 from interest income, and $28,483 from its reserve fund. The reserve fund is projected to exceed the maximum authorized level by $26,718 at the end of the 2014–2015 fiscal period. However, it was noted that it is possible that the Committee may receive less assessments than estimated, as well as incur unanticipated expenses. In addition, the Committee expects to draw funds from the reserve in subsequent fiscal periods that would further reduce the balance.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this proposed change, including other assessment rate levels and leaving the current rate in place. Prior to arriving at this assessment rate recommendation, the Committee considered information from the Board's Executive Committee on the cost savings resulting from recent administrative changes in the Committee office and the level of anticipated Committee expenses moving forward. The Committee debated between an assessment rate of $0.003 and $0.0025 per hundredweight of potatoes. Based on the market and shipping quantities, the Committee recommended the rate of $0.0025 per hundredweight. The Committee believes assessment income combined with income from reimbursed expenses, interest income, and funds from the Committee's financial reserve, would provide sufficient funds to meet its expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the producer price for the 2014–2015 crop could range between $6.55 and $8.10 per hundredweight of potatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2014–2015 fiscal period as a percentage of total producer revenue could range between 0.03 and 0.04 percent.
This action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate would reduce the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 21, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 (Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2014–2015 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2014, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable potatoes handled during such fiscal period; (2) the proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate for assessable potatoes beginning with the 2014–2015 fiscal period; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 945 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
On and after August 1, 2014, an assessment rate of $0.0025 per hundredweight is established for Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes.
Farm Credit Administration.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is considering issuing new regulations, or clarifying and enhancing existing regulations, related to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac) board governance and standards of conduct, including director election procedures, conflicts of interest and risk governance. We are requesting comments on ways to address these issues. In keeping with today's financial and economic environment, we believe it prudent and timely to undertake a review of our regulatory guidance on the identified areas. We intend to use the information and suggestions we receive in response to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the development of guidance on Farmer Mac board governance and standards of conduct.
You may send comments on or before April 28, 2014.
We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's Web site. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we are no longer accepting comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comments multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review copies of all comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or on our Web site at
Joe Connor, Associate Director for Policy and Analysis, Office of Secondary Market Oversight, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4364, TTY (703) 883–4056, or Laura McFarland, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–4056.
The purpose of this ANPRM is to gather public input on how FCA might:
• Enhance risk governance at Farmer Mac to further its long-term safety and soundness and mission achievement;
• Clarify the roles of the board and voting stockholders in the Farmer Mac director nomination and election process;
• Enhance the usefulness, transparency, and consistency of conflicts of interest reporting;
• Clarify conflicts of interest prohibitions; and
• Avoid repetitious disclosure and reporting requirements given the dual reporting responsibilities of Farmer Mac to the FCA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), while maintaining effective and efficient FCA oversight of Farmer Mac.
Farmer Mac is a stockholder-owned, federally chartered instrumentality that is an institution of the Farm Credit System and a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). Farmer Mac was established and chartered by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (1987 Act), which was enacted on January 6, 1988, to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, and rural utilities loans.
As a GSE, Farmer Mac has a public policy purpose embedded in its corporate mission. One aspect of this public policy mission includes financial services to customer-stakeholders (institutions that lend to farmers, ranchers, rural homeowners, and rural utility cooperatives) and the resulting flow-through benefits to rural borrowers. Another key aspect is the protection of taxpayer-stakeholders because the risk that Farmer Mac accepts in the course of business exposes both investors (debt and equity purchasers) as well as taxpayers to potential loss. The taxpayer's exposure arises in part from Farmer Mac's authority to issue debt to the Department of the Treasury to cover guarantee losses under certain adverse circumstances.
Farmer Mac has two classes of voting common stock: Class A and Class B. Class A voting common stock is owned by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. Class B voting common stock is owned by Farm Credit System (System) institutions. In addition, Farmer Mac has nonvoting common stock (Class C), the ownership of which is not restricted and is a means for Farmer Mac to raise capital. Farmer Mac may also issue nonvoting preferred stock.
As a GSE, the structure of Farmer Mac's board of directors was established by Congress. The Farmer Mac board is, by statute, composed of 15 directors representing three segments: Class A stockholders, Class B stockholders, and the general public.
Although the Farmer Mac board is representative in nature, Congress chose a corporate structure to govern the operations of Farmer Mac. Common law corporate principles affirm the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the best interests of Farmer Mac and all of its stockholders. However, this fiduciary duty to stockholders must be understood in the context of the duty of the directors to further the statutory purpose and public mission of Farmer Mac.
Farmer Mac is regulated by FCA through the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO). Section 8.11 of the Act specifies that FCA provides oversight, regulation, examination, and enforcement authority over Farmer Mac to ensure it operates in a safe and sound manner. In addition, the Act requires Farmer Mac to register its equities with the SEC and be subject to SEC disclosure regulations under section 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
When issuing regulations for Farmer Mac, the Act requires FCA to consider:
• The purpose of Farmer Mac's mission;
• If Farmer Mac's activities and practices are appropriate for an agricultural secondary market; and
• The reduced levels of risks associated with appropriately structured secondary market transactions.
We last issued regulations on Farmer Mac board governance and standards of conduct on March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9622). In that rulemaking, we implemented the requirements of section 514 of the Farm Credit Banks and Associations Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (1992 Act)
Corporate governance can be defined as the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions affecting the way a company is directed, administered or controlled. Corporate governance is about building credibility, ensuring transparency and accountability as well as maintaining an effective channel of information disclosure that fosters good corporate performance. The essence of corporate governance is to ensure good performance by the entity, provide proper accountability to all stakeholders, and mitigate conflicts of interest. As part of this, it is essential that corporations practice strong risk management.
Risk management is the identification, assessment and prioritization of risks in
Congress charged us to issue regulations to ensure mission compliance and the safety and soundness of Farmer Mac. With the recent events in the financial industry, increased sophistication in financial markets, and on-going scrutiny of public and agency financial activities and related reporting practices, we believe it is prudent to review our current regulatory standards related to Farmer Mac's board governance and standards of conduct reporting and disclosures, contained in part 651 of our rules, to ensure the continuing mission compliance and safety and soundness of Farmer Mac. We also believe using an ANPRM to solicit opinions and suggestions from investors, stockholders, and other interested parties will facilitate the planned rulemaking in this area.
We have identified the following areas to address in this ANPRM:
• Conflicts of interest for directors, officers and employees;
• Director nominations and elections;
• Director representational and fiduciary duties;
• Board responsibilities in setting appropriate risk tolerance levels and overseeing risk management; and
• General board governance.
We encourage comments and suggestions on how to enhance regulations in the above-identified areas, emphasizing how those programs affect the safety and soundness of Farmer Mac, as well as comments on how to further facilitate transparent and comprehensive disclosure of Farmer Mac's standards of conduct policies and practices.
In particular, we are interested in what ways Farmer Mac's risk governance oversight at the board committee level can be enhanced. We are also seeking suggestions on how we might amend our regulations to address the director nomination and election process to ensure compliance with the plain meaning of the Act as well as whether we should address director removal and prohibited conduct in the planned rulemaking. Suggestions on how we might amend our regulations to address the interaction of representational duties, conflicts of interest, and corporate director fiduciary duties to ensure compliance with the Act are also sought.
We request and encourage any interested person(s) to submit comments on the following questions and ask that you support any comments you submit with relevant data and/or examples. We remind commenters that comments, and data submitted in support of a comment, are available to the public through our rulemaking files. We also invite comments and suggestions on any of the identified areas under consideration, regardless of whether specific questions have been asked.
(1) What, if any, recusal process should FCA require when there is an actual or potential conflict of interest?
(2) Should FCA regulations authorize bylaw provisions for the automatic removal of an elected director found to have violated conflicts of interest prohibitions? If so, what types of prohibited actions related to conflicts of interest should warrant removal?
(3) Should bylaw provisions addressing disciplinary actions for prohibited actions related to conflicts of interest be regulated, such as reduced pay, loss of committee memberships, etc.? If so, please explain why and to what extent.
(4) How should the Farmer Mac nominating committee be structured and what duties should it have?
(5) To what extent, if any, should appointed directors be involved in the elected director nomination process? Please provide the reason(s) supporting your response.
(6) What, if any, additional process besides the nominating committee should there be for shareholders to add director-candidates to the ballot (e.g. floor nominations, petition)?
(7) What other director nomination guidelines should be considered to preserve the representational election of Class A and B directors on the Farmer Mac board?
(8) Should the FCA amend its regulations to identify certain fiduciary responsibilities associated with serving as a director of a GSE? If so, how?
(9) How might FCA clarify existing Farmer Mac board responsibilities and authorities to improve the board's ability to carry out its fiduciary and oversight responsibilities?
(10) How might FCA facilitate maintaining a transparent representational relationship between elected directors and Class A and B stockholders while ensuring the protection of Farmer Mac's proprietary business information?
(11) To what extend should Farmer Mac's risk tolerance consider its public policy purpose? How might that be measured?
(12) How might the FCA ensure that the Farmer Mac board establishes an effective risk governance framework, including risk measurements (e.g. data collection), risk controls and reporting, and clearly articulated statements of risk tolerance?
(13) If FCA requires the Farmer Mac board to have a risk committee, what guidelines should FCA provide regarding the formation and duties of the committee? What qualifications should risk committee members possess? What resources should be available to the committee? Should the committee have direct access to all members of the Farmer Mac management team?
(14) To what extent should FCA issue regulations to address difficulties Farmer Mac may have as a GSE in complying with modern governance standards because of statutory and regulatory requirements regarding the structure, selection, and composition of its board?
(15) How should FCA regulations require Farmer Mac to foster diversity in the selection of directors, officers and employees?
(16) What other Farmer Mac board governance and standards of conduct issues should FCA consider addressing through regulation?
With the benefit of information gained through this ANPRM and our internal analysis, we will consider changes to the regulations to enhance their fundamental objective—to ensure the safety and soundness of Farmer Mac's operations and the furtherance of Farmer Mac's mission.
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 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports from multiple operators that have found fatigue cracking in the corners of the forward galley service doorway. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for any cracking of the skin and bear strap doublers in the corners of the forward galley service doorway, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide optional terminating actions for certain repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2014.
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
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6450; 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 received reports from multiple operators that have found fatigue cracking of the skin and bear strap in the corners of the forward galley service doorway. Some of the reported cracks were found outside of areas of directed or recommended inspections, or in areas modified as specified in previous revisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116. Some airplanes were found to have multiple cracks in the corner areas. This condition, if not corrected, could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.
AD 90–06–02, Amendment 39–6489 (Docket No. 89–NM–67–AD; 55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990); AD 98–11–04 R1, Amendment 39–10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999); AD 2008–08–23, Amendment 39–15477 (73 FR 21237, April 21, 2008); and AD 2008–09–13, Amendment 39–15494 (73 FR 24164, May 2, 2008); are supplemental structural inspection (SSI) program ADs that contain inspection requirements that are near or overlap the inspection areas that this proposed AD would require. The inspections mandated by those exploratory SSI ADs are not sufficient to address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
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 repetitive inspections for certain The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes for any cracking of the skin and bear strap doublers in the corners of the forward galley service doorway, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide optional terminating actions for certain repetitive inspections.
The phrase “corrective actions” is 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.
The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require 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.
Table 11 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, specifies post-repair inspections, which may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2)). However, this NPRM does not propose to require those post-repair inspections. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 419 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair.
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 April 11, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports from multiple operators that have found fatigue cracking of the skin and bear strap in the corners of the forward galley service doorway. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Groups 1 through 4 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013: Within the applicable compliance times specified in Tables 1 through 10 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, except as provided by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, do the applicable detailed and low frequency eddy current inspections for any cracking of the skin and bear straps in the corners of the forward galley service door and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 through 10 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013.
For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013: Within 120 days after the effective date of
(1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013: Accomplishment of a repair before the effective date of this AD in the upper aft corner of the forward galley service doorway, in accordance with any service information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD, terminates the requirement for the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that repaired doorway corner only.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, dated July 21, 1988.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 1, dated September 7, 1989.
(iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 2, dated September 30, 1993.
(iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 3, dated July 27, 1995.
(2) For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, on which no repair or modification was done using any of the service information identified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iv) of this AD; and for Group 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013: Repairing or modifying the upper aft corner of the forward galley service doorway, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that repaired or modified doorway corner only.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, dated July 21, 1988.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 1, dated September 7, 1989.
(iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 2, dated September 30, 1993.
(iv) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 3, dated July 27, 1995.
(3) For Groups 2 and 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013: Repairing or modifying the lower forward or lower aft corner of the forward galley service doorway, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, terminates the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that repaired or modified doorway corner only.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 4 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time “after the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the inspections of the upper corners of the forward galley service doors specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD (which are not incorporated by reference in this AD), provided that any preventative modification installed using this service information is inspected in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, dated July 21, 1988.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 1, dated September 7, 1989.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 2, dated September 30, 1993.
(4) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1116, Revision 3, dated July 27, 1995.
The post-repair inspections specified in Table 11 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, are not required by this AD.
Note 1 to paragraph (l) of this AD: The post-repair inspections specified in Table 11 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1116, Revision 4, dated September 30, 2013, may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(b)(2)).
(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 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6450; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of insufficient clearance between the fuel quantity indicator (FQI) probes and the adjacent structure and metallic components in the wing fuel tanks. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed visual inspection for sufficient clearance between FQI probes on both the left-hand side and right-hand side of the trim horizontal stabilizer and the adjacent structure and metallic components in the fuel tanks, and modification if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct insufficient clearance, which could lead to electrical arcing in a fuel tank during a lightning strike, which could result in ignition and consequent fire or explosion in the fuel tank.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; fax (425) 227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0188, dated August 19, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Airbus investigations on A300 aeroplanes revealed insufficient clearance between the Fuel Quantity Indicator (FQI) probes and adjacent structure or metallic components in the wing fuel tanks. A300–600 and A310 aeroplanes are also affected as they are identical in design.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to electric arcing in a fuel tank in case of lightning strike, which could result in ignition and consequent fire or explosion in the fuel tank.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300–28–0080, SB A300–28–6065 and SB A310–28–2145 and DGAC France issued AD 2000–455–322 (
Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, further analysis showed that they do not cover all potentially affected aeroplanes: A310 aeroplanes with optional Mod. no. 12248 embodied were excluded from the applicability of DGAC France AD 2002–170(B) [
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD (
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310–28–2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003. 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,360, or $680 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 April 11, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A310–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes, certificated in any category, on which Airbus modification number 12248 has been embodied.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of insufficient clearance between the fuel quantity indicator (FQI) probes and the adjacent structure and metallic components in the wing fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient clearance, which could lead to electrical arcing in a fuel tank during a lightning strike, which could result in ignition and consequent fire or explosion in the fuel tank.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time detailed visual inspection for clearance between the FQI probes located in the trimmable horizontal stabilizer tank and the adjacent structure and metallic components, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–28–2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.
(1) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be 3.0 millimeters (mm) (0.118 inch) or more: No further action is required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be 2.5 mm (0.98 inch) or more, and less than 3.0 mm (0.118 inch): Before further flight, loosen the probe screws and move the probe up and down to get the required minimum gap of 3.0 mm (0.118 inch), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–28–2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.
(3) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be less than 2.5 mm (0.118 inch): Before further flight, modify each affected FQI probe by installing new FQI probe supports, in accordance with Step 3.C., “Repair,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–28–2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310–28–2145, dated August 21, 2001.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013–0188, dated August 19, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of rudder
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems, SE–581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1112; fax (425) 227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0172R1, dated September 6, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
One occurrence of rudder pedal restriction has been reported on a SAAB 2000 aeroplane. Subsequent investigation showed that this was the result of water leakage at the inlet tubing for the in-line heater (25HY) in the lower part of the forward fuselage (Zone 116). The in-line heater attachment was found ruptured, which resulted in water spraying in the area. Frozen water on the rudder control mechanism in Zone 116 then led to the rudder pedal restriction.
Analysis after the reported event indicates that the pitch control mechanism (including pitch disconnect/spring unit) may also be frozen as a result of water spray, which would prevent disconnection and normal pitch control.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in further occurrences of reduced control of an aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, as a temporary action to avoid this potential unsafe condition, SAAB determined that the potable water system should be deactivated. SAAB is working on a solution that is expected to eliminate the consequences of water spraying in the area.
To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2013–0172–E [
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, SAAB developed a temporary alternative procedure for filling, reactivation and continued operation of the potable water system. This procedure includes a visual inspection to make sure that there is no water spray in the lower part of the forward fuselage (Zone 116) during refilling of the potable water.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD is revised to allow application of the alternative filling procedure of the Potable Water System.
This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000–38–010, dated July 12, 2013, and Saab Service Newsletter SN 2000–1304, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2013, including Saab Engineering Statement to Operators 2000PBS034334, including Attachment 1 Engineering Statement 2000PBS034334 to SN 2000–1304. (“Attachment 1 to Saab SN 2000–1304” is the Saab Engineering Statement to Operators 2000PBS034334, which includes Appendix 1.) 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 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 this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of
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 April 11, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 004 through 016 inclusive, 018, 022, 023, 024, 026, 029, 031, 032, 033, 035 through 039 inclusive, 041 through 044 inclusive, 046, 047, 048, 051, and 053 through 063 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 38, Water/Waste.
This AD was prompted by a report of rudder pedal restriction which was the result of water leakage at the inlet tubing for an in-line heater in the lower part of the forward fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent rudder pedal restriction due to the pitch control mechanism becoming frozen as the result of water spray, which could prevent disconnection and normal pitch control, and consequently result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, deactivate the potable water system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000–38–010, dated July 12, 2013.
As an alternative, or subsequent, to the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, during each filling of the potable water system after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the temporary filling procedure, in accordance with the instructions in Saab Service Newsletter SN 2000–1304, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2013, including Attachment 1 Engineering Statement to Operators 2000PBS034334.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013–0172R1, dated September 6, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems, SE–581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
This document corrects the title and adds a word to a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
Nanette Jennings, 202–358–0819.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking FR Doc. 2014–03450, on pages 9430–9432 and 9437 in the issue of February 19, 2014, make the following corrections:
1. In the subject heading, on page 9430 in the first column, remove the words “Procedures for Disclosure of Records Freedom of Information Act Regulations” and add in their place “Procedures for Disclosure of Records Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”
2. In the part title, on page 9431 in the first column, remove the words “Procedures for Disclosure of Records Freedom of Information Act Regulations” and add in their place “Procedures for Disclosure of Records Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”
3. In paragraph (h) of § 1206.300 on page 9432 in the third column, add the word “basis” after the words “case-by-case.”
4. In paragraph (i) of § 1206.502 on page 9437 in the first column, remove the reference to paragraphs “(h)(1), (2) and (3)” after the words “such as those listed” and add in its place “(i)(1), (2) and (3).”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule.
NASA is revising the NASA Grant & Cooperative Agreement Handbook to clarify that NASA does not pay profit or fee on Federal Financial Assistance awards,
Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address identified below on or before April 28, 2014 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.
Interested parties may submit comments, identified by RIN 2700–AD79, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
William Roets, NASA Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division, Suite 5K34, 202–358–4483,
NASA published a proposed rule for Profit and Fee Under Financial Assistance Awards in the
There appears to have been some confusion with regard to the term `management fee'. Management fees that are allowable, allocable, reasonable and necessary costs in accordance with an entity's established accounting practices and Government cost principles will be paid by NASA. This rule is clarifying that NASA will not pay profit or fee where profit or fee is defined as the amounts above allowable costs. The language in this rule has been revised to clarify this point.
The proposed rule was withdrawn on May 18, 1999. NASA “decided to withdraw the proposed rule because, in limited situations, a nominal fee may be warranted and necessary for the recipient to perform NASA research” (64 FR26923) May 18, 1999.
NASA now seeks to reverse this longstanding policy, and is using the same rationale in the recently proposed rule change that it had used in 1998, but later withdrew in 1999.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104–13) is not applicable because the prohibition on payment of profit and management fees by NASA does not require the submission of any information by recipients that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Colleges and universities, Business and Industry, Grant programs, Grants administration, Cooperative agreements, State and local governments, Non-profit organizations, Commercial firms, Recipients.
Accordingly, 14 CFR part 1260 is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1), Pub. L. 97–258, 96 Stat. 1003 (31 U.S.C. 6301,
(b) * * *
(2) Payment of fee or profit is consistent with an activity whose principal purpose is the acquisition of goods and services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, rather than an activity whose principal purpose is assistance. Therefore, the grants officer shall use a procurement contract, rather an assistance instrument, in all cases where fee or profit is to be paid to the recipient of the instrument or the instrument is to be used to carry out a program where fee or profit is necessary to achieving program objectives. Grants and cooperative agreements shall not provide for the payment of fee or profit to the recipient.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Payment of fee or profit is consistent with an activity whose principal purpose is the acquisition of goods and services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, rather than an activity whose principal purpose is assistance. Therefore, the grants officer shall use a procurement contract, rather an assistance instrument, in all cases where fee or profit is to be paid to the recipient of the instrument or the instrument is to be used to carry out a program where fee or profit is necessary to achieving program objectives. Grants and
(e) Payment of fee or profit is consistent with an activity whose principal purpose is the acquisition of goods and services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government, rather than an activity whose principal purpose is assistance. Therefore, the grants officer shall use a procurement contract, rather an assistance instrument, in all cases where fee or profit is to be paid to the recipient of the instrument or the instrument is to be used to carry out a program where fee or profit is necessary to achieving program objectives. Grants and cooperative agreements shall not provide for the payment of fee or profit to the recipient.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish Commercial Anchorage “A” and to revise the permit and notification requirements for the anchorage grounds of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California. Commercial Anchorage “A” has become the location of a Submerged Material Storage Site and is no longer usable. Revised permit and notification requirements will affect the six commercial anchorages within the breakwater of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that can accommodate vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet. The proposed revision will require vessels using these deep draft anchorages for more than 48 hours to obtain an extended anchorage permit from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles-Long Beach. This action will assist the COTP and the Pilots for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to reduce congestion in the deep draft anchorage grounds within the harbor breakwater.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG–2013–0841 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Blake Morris, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard District 11, telephone (510) 437–3801, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
33 CFR 110.214(a)(2) allows vessels to remain anchored for up to 10 consecutive days inside of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors before obtaining an extended anchorage permit from the COTP. It does not offer any special consideration for the six anchorages that can accommodate vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet.
Due to the increasing size of commercial vessels and the growth in shipping traffic over the years, the anchorage grounds inside the breakwater of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors are becoming increasingly crowded. Vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet are often compelled to wait outside of the breakwater while other vessels are moved out of deep draft anchorages to accommodate them.
Pilots for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have recommended that the Coast Guard consider reducing the number of days a vessel may remain anchored in the six deep draft anchorages of Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, without approval of the COTP. This will aid them in reducing congestion in the deep draft anchorages more effectively.
33 CFR 110.214(b)(1) establishes Commercial Anchorage “A” within Los Angeles Harbor. Commercial Anchorage “A” is a circular area with a radius of 400 yards, centered in position 33 °43'19.2” N, 118 °14'18.5” W. Since its establishment, Commercial Anchorage “A” has become a Submerged Material Storage Site. It is now encircled by a submerged dike and is no longer usable.
The legal basis for this proposed rule is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define anchorage grounds.
This proposed rule has been recommended by Pilots for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and has three purposes. The first purpose is to disestablish Commercial Anchorage “A”, as it is no longer usable. The second purpose is to identify commercial anchorages B–7, B–9, B–11, D–5, D–6 and D–7 as anchorages that can accommodate vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The final purpose of this proposed rule is to revise the permit and notification requirements for the six anchorages above, by requiring vessels anchored in these anchorages for more than 48 consecutive hours, to obtain an extended anchorage permit from the COTP. This will reduce congestion in the deep draft anchorages within the breakwater of both ports, and reduce the need for deep draft vessels to wait outside the breakwater as other vessels are moved to accommodate them.
The Coast Guard is proposing to disestablish Commercial Anchorage “A” in the regulations for the anchorage grounds of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California in 33 CFR 110.214(b)(1). Commercial Anchorage “A” is a circular area with a radius of 400 yards, centered in position 33°43′19.2″ N, 118°14′18.5″ W, approximately 600 yards to the east of Pier 400. Since its establishment, Commercial Anchorage “A” has become a Submerged Material Storage Site. It is now encircled by a submerged dike and can no longer be used as an anchorage.
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the permit and notification requirements in the regulations for the anchorage grounds of Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California in 33 CFR 110.214(a)(2). Under the proposed rule, no vessel may anchor in deep draft anchorages B–7, B–9, B–11, D–5, D–6 or D–7 within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors for more than 48 consecutive hours unless an extended anchorage permit is obtained from the COTP. These anchorages are the only locations within the breakwater of Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors where vessels with lengths exceeding 800 feet overall and drafts greater than 40 feet can anchor.
The purpose of the 48 hour time requirement is to reduce vessel congestion in deep draft anchorages B–7, B–9, B–11, D–5, D–6 and D–7. Vessels within these anchorages will be required to justify remaining there beyond 48 hours to the COTP, or be prepared to move based on the needs of other vessels and the judgment of the Pilots for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Limiting congestion in these anchorages will reduce the need for deep draft vessels to wait outside of the breakwater while other vessels are moved from the inside deep draft anchorages. As shipping volume and the size of vessels making calls to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue to grow, maintaining anchorage space for deep draft vessels within the shelter of the breakwater is becoming increasingly important.
The proposed rule maintains the requirement for all vessels that anchor anywhere else within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors to obtain an extended anchorage permit from the COTP if they wish to remain anchored for more than 10 consecutive days. In determining whether an extended anchorage permit will be granted (for vessels in any anchorage), consideration will be given, but not necessarily limited to: the current and anticipated demands for anchorage space within the harbor, the requested duration, the condition of the vessel, and the reason for the request.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect minimal additional cost impacts to the maritime industry, because this rule does not impose fees or more specialized requirements to utilize these anchorage grounds. The effect of this rule would not be significant, as it removes an obsolete anchorage ground that is no longer used and revises the permit and notification requirements for six of the deep draft anchorage grounds in Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California. The revised permit and notification requirements do not restrict vessels from utilizing these deep draft anchorages. They will simply require
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to anchor in the affected areas. The impact to these entities is not expected to be significant because the only anticipated impact on vessel owners or operators will be the requirement to obtain an extended anchorage permit if they wish to remain in the deep draft anchorages for more than 48 hours. We expect this 48 hour notice requirement will help toward reducing the need to move vessels out of these deep draft anchorages by providing better awareness of vessel schedules and movements to pilots and the COTP. The proposed rule will reduce congestion, enhance the effectiveness of anchorage management, and increase the availability of deep draft anchorages. It will not hamper the ability of commercial vessels to anchor inside of the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbor breakwater. Disestablishing Commercial Anchorage “A” will have no affect on these entities because the anchorage area is no longer usable and has not been for some time.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves disestablishing one unusable anchorage ground and revising the permit and notification requirements for six deep draft anchorage grounds at Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, California. The revised requirements will assist the COTP and the pilot stations for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in managing anchorages inside the harbor breakwater. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) No vessel may anchor in deep draft anchorages B–7, B–9, B–11, D–5, D–6 or D–7 within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors for more than 48 consecutive hours unless an extended anchorage permit is obtained from the Captain of the Port. No vessel may anchor anywhere else within Los Angeles or Long Beach harbors for more than 10 consecutive days unless an extended anchorage permit is obtained from the Captain of the Port. In determining whether an extended anchorage permit will be granted, consideration will be given, but not necessarily limited to: the current and anticipated demands for anchorage space within the harbor, the requested duration, the condition of the vessel, and the reason for the request.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.
The EPA published in the
The public hearing will be held on March 12, 2014.
The public hearing will be held on March 12, 2014 at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246 (Sabin-Cleere Conference Rooms). The hearing will convene at 8:30 a.m. (Mountain Standard Time) and end at 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time) or after the last pre-registered speaker has spoken, whichever is earlier. A lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. The EPA's Web site for the rulemaking, which includes the proposal and information about the hearing, can be found at:
If you would like to present oral testimony at the public hearing, please register by contacting Mr. Matthew Langenfeld, Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Air Program, Air Permitting, Monitoring and Modeling Unit, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, telephone number (303) 312–6284, facsimile number (303) 312–6064, email address:
Questions concerning the proposed rule that was published in the
The proposal for which the EPA is holding the public hearing was published in the
Commenters should notify Mr. Langenfeld if they will need specific equipment or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the public hearing. The EPA will provide equipment for commenters to make computerized slide presentations if we receive special requests in advance. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The EPA encourages commenters to submit to the docket a copy of their oral
The public hearing schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted on the EPA's Web site at:
The EPA has a docket for the proposed rule, “General Permits for the Minor NSR Program,” under No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151, available at www.regulations.gov.
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of a revision to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Delaware through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). Delaware's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing implementation plan addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is proposing approval of Delaware's SIP revision on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0005, by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by email at
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
On September 24, 2013, DNREC submitted, as a SIP revision (progress report SIP) a report on progress made in
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources within the state.
On September 24, 2013, DNREC submitted a revision to Delaware's regional haze SIP to address progress made towards RPGs of the Class I area outside the State that is affected by emissions from Delaware's sources. This progress report SIP also includes a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. Delaware does not have any Class I areas within its borders. However, in Delaware's September 25, 2008 Regional Haze submittal, DNREC had identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories in consultation with the regional planning organization, Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU), only one Class I area, Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (Brigantine Wilderness Area), in the neighboring State of New Jersey, that can be potentially impacted by Delaware sources.
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); how Delaware's progress report SIP addressed each element; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. Delaware evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2008 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress report SIP, Delaware summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States to assure reasonable progress toward preventing any future, and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas within MANE–VU. Delaware discusses its implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) at the BART sources in the State and discusses how Delaware has far exceeded the MANE–VU goal of 90 percent (%) reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO
The State also discusses the status of those measures that were not included in the MANE–VU coordinated course of action and were not relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The State notes that the emissions reductions from these measures will help ensure the Class I area impacted by Delaware sources achieves its RPGs. The measures include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for EGUs and the 2010 SO
Delaware's progress report includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure and quantified these benefits wherever possible. In instances where implementation of a measure did not occur on schedule, information is provided on the source category and the
EPA finds that Delaware's analysis adequately addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP in addition to describing additional measures not originally accounted for in the coordinated course of action with MANE–VU states or in Delaware's approved regional haze SIP. Delaware's progress report also describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they pertain to the State's sources. The progress report SIP further highlights the effects of state regulations, such as Delaware's multi-pollutant control regulation for EGUs (7 DE Admin. Code 1146), as well as several Federal and state consent decrees for various facilities.
The State's progress report adequately discusses the status of key control measures that Delaware relied upon in the first implementation period to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze SIP, Delaware identified SO
Regarding Delaware's implementation of BART, Delaware's progress report SIP reviews the status of the State's BART sources (Edge Moor Unit 4, Edge Moor Unit 5, Indian River Unit 3, and McKee Run Unit 3). Delaware's regional haze SIP included Delaware's multi-pollutant EGU regulation, 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, as an alternative to BART for SO
Delaware's regional haze SIP also established BART for particulate matter (PM) for these same four sources through control requirements, and Delaware's progress report SIP adequately demonstrates compliance with and implementation of the PM BART at these sources which has yielded PM reductions in addition to the PM reductions projected in the regional haze SIP.
EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP including BART and the coordinated action measures from MANE–VU, described the status of significant measures resulting from EPA regulations and Federal and state consent decrees other than the regional haze program as they pertain to Delaware sources, and included the status of key control measures that the State relied upon in the first implementation period to make reasonable progress. EPA finds Delaware has demonstrated significant reductions in SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP and progress report SIP, Delaware focuses its assessment on the largest contributor to visibility impairment, SO
Overall, SO
Delaware also identifies specific additional SO
Delaware also submitted data for the other states identified as significant contributors of SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The State provides estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions of SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with Class I areas within their borders provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
Because Delaware does not have any Class I areas within its borders, EPA therefore proposes to conclude that Delaware's progress report SIP was not required to address 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), Delaware presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002 and 2008 and compares the 2002 and 2008 data for SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, availability of quality-assured data may not always correspond with this period and there is an inevitable time lag in developing and reporting inventories such that the most recent data may not be available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period states can practically select for tracking emissions changes to meet this requirement. While Delaware used portions of its 2008 emissions inventory for comparison with 2002, Delaware also supplemented this 2008 inventory with emissions data for 2011 for the EGU sector and with additional adjustments for 2012 mobile emissions. EPA believes that Delaware presented an adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its progress report SIP, Delaware states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Brigantine Wilderness Area. However, while Delaware focused its analysis on addressing large SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, Delaware states that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. To support this conclusion, Delaware notes that emissions of SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective. Delaware referenced the improving visibility trends detailed in the NESCAUM report and the downward emissions trends in the State, with a focus on SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. This requirement only applies to states with Class I areas within their borders. EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) because Delaware does not have any Class I areas within its borders and Delaware is not required to address the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes the action taken by Delaware under 40 CFR 51.308(h); Delaware's rationale for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
In its progress report SIP, Delaware took the action provided for by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allow a state to submit a negative declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the findings from the progress report SIP (as discussed in section III of this rulemaking action), including the findings that: SO
EPA is proposing to approve Delaware's Regional Haze five-year progress report SIP revision, submitted September 24, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
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 proposed 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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
• 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 proposed rule to approve Delaware's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve requests by Indiana to revise the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality state implementation plan (SIP) for Allen, Greene, Vanderburgh, Warrick, and Vigo Counties to replace onroad emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with inventories and budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. Indiana submitted the SIP revision requests for Allen, Vigo, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties on July 2, 2013, and submitted the SIP revision request for Greene County on July 8, 2013.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0414 (Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0424 (Allen County), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0425 (Greene County), EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0432 (Vigo County), by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of North Dakota on April 14, 2011. The revisions affect North Dakota's air pollution control rules regarding general provisions, ambient air quality standards (sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0761, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Gail Fallon, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202–1129, (303) 312–6281,
For the purpose of this document, the following definitions apply:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The initials
(vii) The initials
(viii) The initials
(ix) The initials
(x) The initials
(xi) The initials
(xii) The initials
(xiii) The initials
(xiv) The initials
(xv) The initials
(xvi) The words
1.
2.
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The Act requires states to follow certain procedures in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to EPA. Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act provide that each implementation plan must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
To provide for public comment, the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH), after providing notice, held a public hearing on August 19, 2010 to consider the revisions to its Air Pollution Control Rules. Following the public hearing, comment period, and legal review by the North Dakota Attorney General's Office, NDDH adopted the revisions. The revisions to the Air Pollution Control Rules became effective on April 1, 2011. The North Dakota Governor submitted the SIP revisions to us with a letter dated April 14, 2011.
We are proposing action on the April 14, 2011 submittal for SIP revisions that involve the following chapters of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC): 33–15–01, “General Provisions;” 33–15–02, “Ambient Air Quality Standards;” and 33–15–14, “Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to Construct, Minor Source Permit to Operate, Title V permit to Operate.” We previously acted on the revisions to NDAC 33–15–15, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality” in the April 14, 2011 submittal regarding regulation of GHGs and fine particulate matter (PM
The State revised section 33–15–01–04.52 and cross-referenced and incorporated by reference the version of 40 CFR 51.100(s) as it existed on July 2, 2010 for purposes of defining “volatile organic compounds” (the prior date used was March 1, 2008). This change is minor and is consistent with relevant CAA and regulatory requirements.
In section 33–15–02–04.1, “Particulates and Gases,” the State deleted the language, “Except as provided in section 33–15–02–07 . . .” at EPA's request. We were concerned that the cross reference to subsection 33–15–02–07.4 in 33–15–02–07, “Concentrations of Air Contaminants in the Ambient Air Restricted,” gave discretion to the state director to exempt, from ambient air quality standards, emissions during malfunctions and maintenance shutdowns. We asked the State to address our concern. The deletion of subsection 33–15–02–07.4 from 33–15–02–07 and the deletion of the language cross referencing to it in subsections 33–15–02–04.1, 33–15–02–07.1 and 33–15–02–07.2 addresses our concern and is consistent with CAA requirements.
In section 33–15–02–07, “Concentrations of Air Contaminants in the Ambient Air Restricted,” the State deleted subsection 33–15–02–07.3 and the cross references to this subsection in 33–15–02–07.1 and 33–15–02–07.2. Prior to this revision, there was a 1-hour state ambient air quality standard (SAAQS) for SO
Also in section 33–15–02–07, Tables 1 and 2 were revised. Table 1, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” that lists the State ambient air quality standards was revised to add the new 2010 federal 1-hour standards for NO
In Chapter 33–15–14, in addition to several housekeeping revisions, the State made revisions to sections 33–15–14–01 and 33–15–14–02 with the intent to change the permitting requirement for sources subject to a new source performance standard (NSPS) or national emission standard for
CAA section 110(l) requires a demonstration that a SIP revision does not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and that a relaxation is sufficiently protective of air quality and other CAA requirements in order for EPA to approve the relaxation. EPA conducted such a demonstration for the permitting rule revision in the April 2011 submittal finding the revisions are not presently interfering with the State's SIP control strategy or causing NAAQS violations in North Dakota. Our demonstration is included in the docket for this action.
The specific revisions related to the minor source NSPS and NESHAP permitting issue as well as other revisions to the minor source NSR program are described below.
In section 33–15–14–01, “Designated Air Contaminant Sources,” the State revised the list of sources “capable of causing or contributing to air pollution.” The revised sections read as follows:
33–15–14–01.9. Any source for which an applicable federal standard of performance (40 CFR 60) has been adopted in chapter 33–15–12.
33–15–14–01.10. Any source for which an applicable national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (40 CFR 61) has been adopted in chapter 33–15–13.
In section 33–15–14–02, “Permit to construct,” the State made the following revisions:
In subsection 33–15–14–02.1, “Permit to construct required,” the State deleted the following language from the end of the first paragraph, “This requirement shall also apply to any source for which a federal standard of performance has been promulgated prior to such filing of an application for a permit to construct. A list of sources for which a federal standard has been promulgated, and the standards which apply to such sources, must be available at the department's offices.” The subsection now reads, “No construction, installation or establishment of a new stationary source within a source category designated in section 33–15–14–01 may be commenced unless the owner or operator thereof shall file an application for, and receive, a permit to construct in accordance with this chapter.”
In subsection 33–15–14–02.13, “Exemptions,” the State deleted the following language from the end of the introductory sentence, “and there is no applicable new source performance standard, or national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants.” This subsection now reads, “A permit to construct is not required for the following stationary sources provided there is no federal requirement for a permit or approval for construction or operation.”
In subsection 33–15–14–02.13.o, the State made a revision deleting an unnecessary subsection reference for the definition of major source which we are approving. The subsection now reads, “Oil and gas production facilities as defined in chapter 33–15–20 which are not a major source as defined in section 33–15–14–06.” The State is moving towards less precise numbering references, in some cases, to simplify any future rule renumbering requirements. In addition, under this provision, oil and gas production facilities that are not major sources are exempted from review and permitting. While EPA approved this provision in 1995, we do have concerns now that the provision may need to be strengthened in order to conform with the CAA and EPA's minor NSR regulations 40 CFR 51.150–51.164. EPA has not reviewed the substance of this rule as part of this action. The EPA is now merely approving the deletion of the numbering cross reference submitted by the State. The current version of the NDAC rule does not contain substantive changes from the prior codification that we approved into the SIP. EPA acknowledges that there are ongoing discussions with North Dakota to address EPA's concerns with the rule language that EPA previously approved into the North Dakota SIP. In a December 10, 2013 letter from Terry O'Clair, Director of North Dakota's Division of Air Quality to Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, North Dakota committed to provide clarification of the applicability of the oil and gas production operations registration program and guidance. Because this rule revision in the SIP only deletes a numbering cross reference, we are proposing to approve this revision
Also in Chapter 33–15–14, the State made several housekeeping revisions. A revision in subsection 1.12 is clarifying in nature and replaced language about a source's emissions “affecting” state air quality with language regarding a source that the State determined to “cause or contribute to a violation” of air quality standards. A revision in subsection 1.15 added the word “stationary” to clarify the State's intent to regulate only stationary sources under its permitting program.
33–15–14–01.12. Any source which is determined by the department to cause or contribute to a violation of any SAAQS or violates the other provisions of chapter 33–15–02.
33–15–14–01.15. Other stationary sources subject to a standard or requirement under the Federal Clean Air Act as amended.
In section 33–15–14–03, “Minor source permit to operate,” the State deleted exception language in subsection 33–15–14–03.1.c related to the requirement for a minor source
The changes in Chapter 33–15–14 only affect the applicability of certain permitting requirements contained in this Chapter. These changes do not affect emission limits in the SIP or other requirements that would affect ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants. These changes are consistent with CAA and regulatory requirements.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the North Dakota SIP that the Governor of North Dakota submitted with a letter dated April 14, 2011 and that were state-effective April 1, 2011. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's revisions to the following portions of the North Dakota Administrative Code: Chapter 33–15–01, “General Provisions,” section 33–15–01–04.52 ; Chapter 33–15–02, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” sections 33–15–02–04.1, 33–15–02–07.1, 33–15–02–07.2, 33–15–02–07.3, 33–15–02–07.4, section 33–15–02, Tables 1 and 2. EPA is proposing to approve Chapter 33–15–14, “Designated Air Contaminant Sources, Permit to Construct, Minor Source Permit to Operate, Title V Permit to Operate,” sections 33–15–14–01.9, 33–15–14–01.10, 33–15–14–01.12, 33–15–14–01.15, 33–15–14–02.1, 33–15–14–02.13, 33–15–14–02.13.o, 33–15–14–03.1c with the understanding that the State and EPA will continue discussions to clarify and strengthen the State's current minor source program as it relates to oil and gas production facilities. See section III of this action for a description of these revisions. EPA acted previously on the revisions to Chapter 33–15–15, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,” that were also included in the April 14, 2011 submittal. See 77 FR 64734, October 23, 2012.
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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 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 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Virginia's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is proposing approval of Virginia's SIP revision on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0006, by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by email at
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
On November 8, 2013, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted, as a SIP revision (progress report SIP), a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in the Commonwealth and Class I areas outside the Commonwealth that are affected by emissions from Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a determination that the Commonwealth's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and collaborate with
On November 8, 2013, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to address progress made towards RPGs of Class I areas in the Commonwealth and Class I areas outside the Commonwealth that are affected by emissions from Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP also includes a determination of the adequacy of the Commonwealth's existing regional haze SIP.
Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: James River Face Wilderness Area (James River) and Shenandoah National Park (Shenandoah). Virginia mentions in the progress report SIP that Virginia sources were also identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, as potentially impacting nine Class I areas in five neighboring states: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West Virginia; Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer—Slickrock Wilderness Area in North Carolina and Tennessee; Linville Gorge, Shining Rock and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina; Cohutta and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Cape Romaine Wilderness Area in South Carolina.
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be addressed by the progress report under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g); how Virginia's progress report SIP addressed each element; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the Commonwealth satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. The Commonwealth of Virginia evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2010 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its progress report SIP, Virginia summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration of the Visibility Improvement—State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling. The Commonwealth also discusses the status of those measures that were not included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The Commonwealth notes that the emissions reductions from these measures, which are relied upon by Virginia for reasonable progress, will help ensure Class I areas impacted by Virginia sources achieve their RPGs. The measures include applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, Federal and state consent agreements, and Federal and state control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs) such as CAIR, CSAPR, and state multi-pollutant regulations for EGUs). Virginia's summary includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure and quantifies those benefits wherever possible. In instances where implementation of a measure did not occur on schedule, information is provided on the source category and the measure's relative impact on the overall future year emissions inventories. The progress report SIP also discusses the status and implementation of the best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations for BART sources in Virginia, the implementation status of BART for sources in neighboring states, and the implementation of a reasonable progress determination for one Virginia source. Finally, Virginia's progress report SIP discusses implementation of regulations and requirements developed after Virginia's regional haze SIP was prepared which Virginia asserts will provide extra assurance that Virginia's Class I areas will meet their RPGs including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) for EGUs, the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
In aggregate, as noted later in section III.A of this rulemaking action, the emissions reductions from the identified measures are expected to exceed significantly the original projections in Virginia's regional haze SIP and result in lower emissions by 2018 than originally projected. Virginia states that it did not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in any of the Class I areas in Virginia or neighboring states by any of the changes to the emissions reductions projected.
EPA proposes to find that Virginia's analysis adequately addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The Commonwealth documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP such as regulations, Federal and state consent decrees, and BART determinations in addition to describing additional measures that came into effect since the VISTAS analysis for the Virginia regional haze SIP was completed, including new regulations for EGUs, Federal consent decrees, and unanticipated plant shutdowns. Virginia's progress report also describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they pertain to Virginia sources. The progress report SIP highlights the effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and in the VISTAS region, and when possible, in Virginia.
The Commonwealth's progress report discusses the status of key control measures that the Commonwealth relied upon in the first implementation period to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze SIP, Virginia identified SO
Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control requirements for sources in the Commonwealth, EPA finds Virginia's progress report SIP adequately reviews the status of the Commonwealth's four BART sources and its reasonable progress determination source by mentioning that controls are currently operational at these sources or that units
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze SIP and progress report SIP, Virginia focused its assessment on the largest contributor to visibility impairment, SO
Overall, Virginia states SO
While heat input to Virginia's EGUs has decreased approximately 27 percent from 2002 values, Virginia states in its progress report SIP that SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) with its summary of the large emissions reductions, particularly in SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
The Commonwealth provides visibility data for 2001 through 2011 that addresses the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for James River and Shenandoah. In the Virginia regional haze SIP, for the 20% worst days, Virginia established a RPG for James River of 6.7 deciview (dv) reduction in visibility impairment by 2018, which is significantly greater than the 4.2 dv reduction required to meet the uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve a natural background condition of 11.1 dv by 2064. For Shenandoah, Virginia established a RPG for the 20% worst days of 7.4 dv reduction in visibility impairment by 2018, which is significantly greater than the 4.2 dv reduction required to meet the uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve the natural background condition of 11.4 dv by 2064. Likewise, Virginia also adopted a RPG for the 20% best days that would result in a 2.2 dv reduction in visibility impairment for James River and 1.8 dv reduction in visibility impairment for Shenandoah. Based on Virginia's analysis of emissions reductions and visibility data for 2001–2011, Virginia states it is on track to achieve its RPGs by 2018, visibility is improving at James River and Shenandoah, and no additional controls on non-EGUs are needed as SO
EPA finds the difference between current and baseline visibility and the five-year rolling averages for the most impaired (20% worst) and least impaired (20% best) days at both Virginia Class I areas indicates that visibility has significantly improved since 2001 (as illustrated in Table 1 of this rulemaking action) and finds Virginia's assessment that it is on track
EPA finds Virginia provided the required information regarding visibility conditions and changes to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically providing current conditions based on the latest available Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data, the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions (2001–2004), and the change in visibility impairment over the most recent five-year period (2007–2011) for which data were available at the time of the progress report SIP development. For the 2007–2011 time period for James River, visibility impairment for the 20-percent worst days improved by 4.5 dv (comparing 5 year averages) and for the 20-percent best days improved by 1.3 dv (comparing 5 year averages). For the 2007–2011 time period for Shenandoah, visibility impairment for the 20-percent worst days improved by 4.8 dv (comparing 5 year averages) and for the 20-percent best days improved by 1.2 dv (comparing 5 year averages). Given the visibility improvement in Virginia's Class I areas, EPA finds that the Commonwealth's assessment that it is on track to meet RPGs by 2018 is reasonable. EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP, Virginia presents emissions inventories for 2002, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2018 in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). The progress report SIP includes Virginia's baseline emissions inventory from 2002 and estimated emissions inventories for 2009 and 2018 (as updated by VISTAS in 2008).
The pollutants inventoried include carbon monoxide (CO), VOCs, NO
For meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), Virginia documented substantial emissions reductions in SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze SIP was submitted, availability of quality-assured data may not always correspond with this period. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period states can select for tracking emissions changes to meet this requirement. EPA proposes to find Virginia appropriately compared its 2011 emissions inventory with the 2007 emissions inventory.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its progress report SIP, Virginia states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at James River and Shenandoah. Accordingly, Virginia focused its analysis on addressing large SO
EPA proposes to find that Virginia has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The Commonwealth adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, Virginia states that it believes that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable Virginia and other neighboring states to meet all the established RPGs. To support this conclusion, the Commonwealth of Virginia notes that Virginia's actual 2012 EGU emissions of SO
EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective. The Commonwealth referenced the improving visibility trends with appropriately supported data and referenced the downward emissions trends in the Commonwealth, with a focus on SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of a state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP, Virginia summarizes the existing monitoring network at James River and Shenandoah and discusses its intended continued reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring network for its visibility planning. Virginia also expresses its continued commitment to operate monitors supporting regional haze investigations where appropriate and when support is available. Virginia also encourages VISTAS and other regional planning organizations to maintain support of the existing data management system or an equivalent to facilitate availability analysis of IMPROVE and visibility-related data. Virginia concludes that the existing network is adequate and that no modifications to the Commonwealth's visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this time.
EPA proposes to conclude that Virginia has adequately addressed the
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: the action taken by Virginia under 40 CFR 51.308(h); Virginia's rationale for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination regarding the Commonwealth's action.
In its progress report SIP, Virginia submitted a negative declaration that it had determined that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by Virginia's sources. The basis for the Commonwealth's negative declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in section III of this rulemaking action), including the findings that: Visibility data has improved at James River and Shenandoah; SO
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the 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 proposing to approve Virginia's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on November 8, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
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 proposed 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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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 proposed rule to approve Virginia's regional haze progress report SIP revision does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
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 March 27, 2014.
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
Lois Rossi, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
DARS, Department of Defense.
Notice of extension of public comment period.
The Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) gives notice that the comment period announced in the February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8402) notice of request for public comments on DPAP's review of statutory and regulatory requirements, will be extended an additional 40 days until April 23, 2014. DPAP is currently conducting an assessment to identify impacts experienced by industry resulting from contracting statutes.
Submit written comments to the address shown below on or before April 23, 2014. Comments received will be considered by DoD in the formation of a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense if a revision to the definition is necessary and appropriate.
Submit comments to: Mr. Michael Canales, Room 5E621, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Comments may also be submitted by fax at (703) 614–1254, or by email at
Mr. Michael Canales, DPAP/CPIC, by telephone at (703) 695–8571, or by email at
The purpose of the assessment is to support an internal Department of Defense (DoD) effort to reduce compliance impacts that do not achieve the benefits intended by contracting statutes. As part of this assessment, DPAP would like to receive the views of interested parties identifying particular impacts associated with specific contracting statutes. There is an extensive body of law and regulation that govern the Department's business. We are seeking to better understand the impact experienced by industry resulting from requirements based on statute. Our initial review identified approximately 400 DFARS requirements based solely on statute. The Director, DPAP, is soliciting public input to identify particular impacts associated with specific contracting statutes, with reference to—
• Particular impacts associated with specific contracting statutes;
• Why the identified impact does not achieve the intended benefit of the identified legislation, or why the intended benefit is not helpful to the Department; and
• Any recommendations for alternative approaches to achieve the intended benefit of the identified legislation.
We are also interested in candidate DFARS and component supplements requirements that, although not based in statute, warrant similar consideration.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
PHMSA is closing this rulemaking proceeding under this docket having reconsidered our proposal for additional regulations associated with cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) loading or unloading operations. This action is based on the findings of the regulatory assessment, comments to docket of this rulemaking, and completion of a supplementary policy analysis on how best to address the safety risks of bulk loading and unloading operations. As an alternative to new regulatory requirements, PHMSA will be issuing a guidance document to provide best practices for CTMV loading and unloading operations; and will be conducting research to better understand the wide range of human factors that contribute to hazardous materials incidents including those associated with CTMV loading and unloading operations.
Effective February 25, 2014, the proposed rule published in the
Dirk Der Kinderen, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, telephone (202–366–8553.
A. Scope
On March 11, 2011, PHMSA published an NPRM under Docket PHMSA–2007–28119 (76 FR 13313) (HM–247) to amend the hazardous materials regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171–180) by requiring each person who engages in CTMV loading or unloading operations to perform a risk assessment of its loading and unloading operations and develop and implement safe operating procedures based upon the results of the risk assessment. PHMSA also proposed additional personnel training and qualification requirements for persons who perform these operations.
In the NPRM, PHMSA discussed the safety problem associated with CTMV loading and unloading operations, including:
• A summary of loading and unloading incident data;
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Chemical Safety Board (CSB) safety recommendations issued to PHMSA as a result of accident
• Recommended operating procedures proposed by the Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation (Interested Parties) (an informal association of offerors, carriers, and industrial package manufacturers);
• A petition (P–1506) for rulemaking submitted by the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC); and
• Comments received in response to PHMSA's notice of recommended practices published on January 4, 2008 under Docket Number PHMSA–2007–28119 (73 FR 916) (Notice No. 07–9).
In the NPRM, PHMSA indicated that adopting regulations to require offerors, carriers, or facility operators to develop and implement operating procedures governing the loading and unloading of a CTMV would enhance the safety of such operations. We solicited comments on the regulations proposed and the accuracy of PHMSA's cost and benefits estimates set forth in the preliminary regulatory impact assessment. The NPRM and supporting documents are available for review in the docket for this rulemaking at
As part of PHMSA's initial rulemaking efforts in this area, a preliminary analysis was completed. Through this analysis it was apparent that shipments of hazardous materials (hazmat) by CTMV pose some level of risk to public safety on a daily basis. A 2007 Commodity Flow Survey by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics highlights this by indicating that an estimated 323.5 billion-ton-miles of hazardous materials were transported in 2007 of which approximately a third (104 billion-ton-miles) was transported by truck and an additional 7 percent was by multimodal transport that included truck. We believe we can safely reason that a similar amount is transported annually today, which presents ample opportunity for incidents to occur during the course of highway transportation including during CTMV loading and unloading operations.
As the HMR currently requires function specific training and recordkeeping of this training (See 49 CFR Part 172 Subpart H) and has loading and unloading requirements for transport via public highways (See 49 CFR Part 177 Subpart B), PHMSA expects that most entities already have some manner of documentation surrounding process review, training of personnel, and maintenance of equipment involved in these operations. Other federal agencies also have requirements associated with loading and unloading operations that encompass bulk transport vehicles. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) standard (See
Despite these requirements incidents do continue to occur. An analysis of CTMV loading and unloading incidents during the 10-year period 2000–2009 revealed that, among other causes, human error is the greatest primary cause of accidents. Most human error accidents can be attributed to inattention to detail in performing a loading or unloading function, including failure to follow attendance requirements, leaving valves in open or closed positions, improperly connecting hoses and other equipment, or not disconnecting hoses prior to vehicles having completed fill operation. This leads to accidents such as overfilling receiving tanks, over-pressurizing CTMVs, or loading/unloading incompatible materials. About 3,500 incidents could be attributed to CTMV loading and unloading incidents. These incidents resulted in an estimated $68 million in societal damages, or $6.8 million per year, during the 10-year analysis period. Thus, there is a cost to society from CTMV loading and unloading incidents.
Following the publication of the HM–247 NPRM, PHMSA updated the regulatory assessment. The updated analysis estimated benefits associated with the proposed rule from avoidance of incidents at $1.7 million annually while costs are estimated to be $1.1 million annually. The overall estimated impacts identified in the analysis are predicated on the level of existing pre-compliance and the overall effectiveness of the regulations. We assume 50 percent
Furthermore, in the absence of true data, we rely heavily on estimates of variables used in calculating the benefits and costs, either from previous analyses for other rulemaking efforts or from newly calculated estimates. Although, we did not receive adverse comments on our estimates and also received some supportive comments, we remain concerned about achieving a valid result. Despite the 1.5 benefit-cost ratio PHMSA is concerned that the overall benefit of regulatory action is overestimated based on the role that human error plays in loading and unloading incidents. Due to this uncertainty, PHMSA conducted a supplementary policy analysis to help decision-makers determine whether regulatory action was the best path forward or if non-regulatory approaches may be just as effective. This supplementary analysis is discussed in Section IV of this withdrawal notice.
In response to PHMSA's March 11, 2011 NPRM, PHMSA received comments from 44 organizations and individuals:
The comments are available for review in the docket for this rulemaking at
Commenters noted confusion about the applicability of the proposed rule, namely, how the rulemaking would apply in the absence of a carrier at a facility as well as the extent of the reach of the applicability (e.g., Does it end at the first permanent valve on the receiving equipment?). Additionally, commenters questioned whether there is a minimum threshold before the rulemaking would apply (i.e., 3,000 liters) and whether the rulemaking truly is performance-based rather than prescriptive.
PHMSA proposed to require any person who loads or unloads hazmat or
PHMSA proposed to require each person who is subject to the risk assessment requirement to develop, maintain, and adhere to an operating procedure for the specific loading or unloading operation based on the completed risk assessment. The operating procedures were to include provisions that address pre-loading/unloading, loading/unloading, emergency management, post-loading/unloading, design, maintenance and testing of transfer equipment, facility oversight of carrier personnel, and recordkeeping. Commenters questioned the intent of provisions for the maintenance and testing of transfer equipment within the operating procedure requirements. Commenters discussed additional issues such as alternative measures for attendance during a loading operation.
PHMSA proposed annual evaluation of hazmat employees performing CTMV loading and unloading operations through measures such as direct observation of routine performance of duties or through practice sessions and drills. Many commenters strongly opposed this proposal. They generally asserted that PHMSA significantly underestimated the costs of such a requirement in the preliminary assessment for the NPRM.
PHMSA proposed recordkeeping requirements for the written risk assessment and operating procedure. Several commenters suggested that this proposed requirement to document and retain risk assessments is overly burdensome and unnecessary.
Commenters requested an extended compliance date to allow for time to conduct a complete review of current practices and to implement improvements or updates while others suggested that a significant majority of potentially affected entities already have operating procedures in place that would satisfy the regulations set forth in this proposed rule such that an extended compliance period would not be necessary.
PHMSA conducts a policy analysis to identify and manage risks in the transportation of hazmat. The policy analysis makes use of a risk management framework that defines the main elements of identified risk(s) and outlines possible ways to address the risk(s). The process begins when a risk in the transportation of hazmat is first assessed (e.g., when a risk is presented to PHMSA through an NTSB safety recommendation), and ends with an agency decision on implementation of an identified approach of how to manage the risk, such as implementing a new regulation.
In consideration of the negative comments on the NPRM and uncertainties about regulatory action as well as the uncertainties of the regulatory assessment, PHMSA conducted a supplementary policy analysis to help decision-makers determine whether this effort is the best course of action. After this policy analysis, we reconsidered our approach to address the safety risks of bulk loading and unloading operations through rulemaking. The analysis raised concerns on the effectiveness of implementing any new regulations covering loading and unloading operations including whether any proposed regulations would be: (1) Redundant because the activity is already covered in some manner under the current HMR; (2) impactful in that many of the incidents having occurred in the past would probably continue to occur because of the human element in incidents indicating that further regulation may be ineffective; and (3) confusing to implement without an memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the agencies that have oversight clearly defining roles and enforcement of these types of operations.
The subsequent recommendations of the assessment include (in no particular order of priority): (1) Preparing a guidance document that, together with current regulations, provides direction on bulk loading and unloading operational procedures, use of personal protective equipment, and maintenance and inspection of transfer equipment; (2) engaging in a rigorous outreach campaign to raise awareness; (3) implementing a human factor study associated with bulk loading and unloading operations; and (4) finalizing a (MOU) with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and, possibly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to specify any new regulatory requirements and enforcement roles. These recommendations are discussed in further detail below.
Agency guidance includes any statement of policy, interpretation of a regulation, or any other method used to communicate to the regulated public the agency expectations. Guidance is not legally binding and may not mandate or require a particular action but rather is intended to provide helpful information, clarify a rule's or statute's meaning, or communicate our policy for implementing requirements. Based on concerns raised on the effectiveness of further regulation in the supplementary policy analysis, it is better served that PHMSA prepare a guidance document that provides helpful information on CTMV loading and unloading operations in addition to what is required by regulation. The guidance would cover, in part, training on operational procedures, provision of personal protection equipment, and maintenance and inspection of transfer equipment including emergency shutdown systems and would be based on the content and structure of the proposed regulations in the NPRM. Although not binding as stated earlier, we believe issuing a guidance document still provides an opportunity to enhance safety by clarifying the current requirements, providing helpful information, outlining our expectations for CTMV loading and unloading operations, and clearly attributing human error to loading and unloading incidents.
To supplement the abovementioned plans for issuing guidance, PHMSA plans to develop and implement an outreach program to raise awareness of the ongoing risk of CTMV loading and unloading incidents and to educate regulated entities on ways to prevent or mitigate the risks.
Human factors research involves the study of the way humans relate to the world around them. Human factors certainly play a role in hazmat transportation especially bulk loading and unloading operations because individuals are directly involved (e.g., handling of transfer equipment) and thus, human factors research is included among the priorities of PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)
The goal of the OHMS R&D program is to enhance the safety mission and identify and mitigate the emerging risks associated with hazmat transportation and to better understand the factors contributing to these risks. This human factors research effort is, among other things, designed to supply information necessary to guide future changes in regulations. OHMS created this priority to examine human involvement in the release of hazmat (e.g., human error), to research regulations that involve human impact, and develop new strategies to reduce human handling errors. Although historically overlooked in hazmat transportation safety research, we view this type of research essential as the safe transportation of all hazmat involves human interaction within the transportation system. This research would involve some manner of assessment of human factors in bulk loading and unloading operations including for CTMV operations. Results of such research may bear out significant information that can be used to support future rulemaking action.
As part of a plan to enhance safety of bulk loading and unloading operations (including CTMV operations), PHMSA had envisioned development of an MOU with OSHA to clarify responsibilities. This plan called for a two-pronged approach of an MOU supplemented by a phased rulemaking approach (i.e., first a rulemaking to address CTMV loading and unloading operations followed by rulemakings for tank cars and other bulk packaging). But, since we are withdrawing this rulemaking, PHMSA does not plan to develop an MOU at this time because development of the MOU was intended to be directly linked to the new regulations proposed in the NPRM.
PHMSA has concluded that adopting the regulations proposed under the NPRM is not the best course of action at this time. PHMSA has based this decision on its concerns that further regulation would create redundancies, confusion, and possibly be ineffective in preventing many of the very same incidents it is intended to address. Non-regulatory approaches are available in the short term that would still provide an opportunity to enhance safety of CTMV loading and unloading operations by raising awareness and communicating our expectations. Key non-regulatory activities include:
1. Issuing a guidance document for CTMV loading and unloading operations;
2. Implementing an outreach campaign to educate the regulated community on current regulatory requirements and best safety practices; and
3. Conducting human factors research to examine human involvement in release of hazmat and to potentially use this to support future consideration of rulemaking to address CTMV loading and unloading operations.
Accordingly, PHMSA is withdrawing the March 11, 2011 NPRM and terminating this rulemaking proceeding.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 10, 2014, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments; correction.
This action corrects a web address provided for the submission of electronic public comments in a notice that published on February 6, 2014.
Comments on the proposed rule and the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) must be submitted on or before March 10, 2014. A public hearing will be held from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. PST, February 28, 2014, in Long Beach, CA.
Heidi Taylor, NMFS West Coast Region, 562–980–4039, or Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS West Coast Region, 562–980–4036.
NMFS proposed regulations that would establish requirements for a satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) for U.S. commercial fishing vessels, 24 meters or more in overall length, used to target any fish of the genus
NMFS provided methods to submit public comments that include electronic, mail and a public hearing. However, the web address provided for the submission of electronic public comments is incorrect.
Accordingly, in the notice published on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7152), on page 7152, third column, in the first bullet point of the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of 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.
Comments regarding this information collection received by March 27, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection in support of the Regulations for Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs—7 CFR Part 56. With this submission we will merge the burden and forms of the 0581–0127 Regulations for Voluntary Grading of Poultry Products and Rabbit Products; 7 CFR Part 70, approved on December 26, 2013; and 0581–0128 Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs, 7 CFR Part 56, approved on June 4, 2011. With this merge we will change the title to Regulations for Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs, Poultry Products, and Rabbit Products—7 CFR Part 56 and 70.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 28, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection notice. Comments should be submitted online at
Michelle Degenhart at the above physical address, or by email at
Regulations Governing the Voluntary Grading of Poultry Products and Rabbit Products—7 CFR Part 70.
This collection was approved by OMB on December 26, 2013 and all forms, responses and burden will be included with this submission. Total burden to be merged is 2,005 burden hours and 24,053 responses.
Comments are invited on: (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 including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for a revision to and an extension of approval of an information collection associated with qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by ANS.
All comments received by April 28, 2014 will be considered.
By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between AMS and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on AMS services will be unavailable. AMS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of AMS (if released, AMS must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collection will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information,
As a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
AMS currently has approval from OMB for this information collection under Executive Order 12862. This approval is for 60,000 burden hours, based on our initial request to OMB in April 2011. We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities for three years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AMS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the animal disease traceability framework.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 28, 2014.
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 information on the animal disease traceability framework, contact Dr. John Wiemers, Senior Staff Veterinarian-ADT, VS, APHIS, APHIS, 2100 South Lake Storey Road, Galesburg, IL 61401; (309) 344–1942. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
APHIS made systems for animal disease traceability available to Tribal Nations for managing the issuance of unique location identification numbers, including the Standardized Premises Location System and a Tribal Premises Location System, which required completion and submission of Veterinary Services Form 1–63, Tribal Location Identification System Implementation Request.
The above information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under this collection. However, on January 9, 2013, APHIS published a final rule in the
In addition, the previous name for this collection was “Animal Disease Traceability; Tribal Nations Using Systems for Location Identification.” However, based on the January 2013 final rule, there are other entities who must meet the animal disease traceability requirements; therefore, we are changing the name of this collection to “Animal Disease Traceability.”
We are asking OMB to approve these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
The comment period for a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on environmental impacts that may result from the potential approval of petitions seeking a determination of nonregulated status of three cultivars of herbicide resistant corn and soybeans produced by Dow AgroSciences LLC will remain open until March 11, 2014. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the draft EIS announced in the notice published January 10, 2014 (79 FR 1861–1862) will remain open until March 11, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Sid Abel, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238; (301) 851–3896.
On January 10, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the
Comments on the draft EIS were required to be received on or before February 24, 2014. We will now accept all comments on the draft EIS received through March 11, 2014. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
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).
NOAA has established large-scale depth-based management areas, referred to as Groundfish Conservation Areas (GCAs), where groundfish fishing is prohibited or restricted. These areas were specifically designed to reduce the catch of species while allowing healthy fisheries to continue in areas and with gears where little incidental catch of overfished species is likely to occur. Because NOAA needs methods to effectively enforce area restrictions, certain commercial fishing vessels are required to install and use a vessel monitoring system (VMS) that automatically sends hourly position reports. Exemptions from the reporting requirement are available for inactive vessels or vessels fishing outside the monitored area. The vessels are also required to declare what gear will be used.
To ensure the integrity of the GCAs and Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA), a pilot VMS program was implemented on January 1, 2004. The pilot program required vessels registered to Pacific Coast groundfish fishery limited entry permits to carry and use VMS transceiver units while fishing off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. On January 1, 2007, the VMS program coverage was expanded on to include all open access fisheries in addition to the limited entry fisheries.
This information collection can be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Public Meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC will address census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs. The NAC will meet in a plenary session on March 20–21, 2014. Last-minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.
March 20–21, 2014. On March 20, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On March 21, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Jeri Green,
The NAC comprises up to thirty-two members. The Committee provides an organized and continuing channel of communication between race, ethnic, and other populations and the Census Bureau. The Committee will advise the Director of the Census Bureau on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.
The NAC also assists the Census Bureau on ways that census data can best be disseminated to diverse race and ethnic populations and other users. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)).
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on March 21. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to Ms. Jeri Green at least three days before the meeting. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, March 17, 2014. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign-language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as possible, preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301–763–9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on March 12 and 13, 2014, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks by Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
3. Review of Emerging Technologies and Methodologies for the Identification of Emerging Technologies.
4. Membership Recruitment.
5. Export Control Reform—developments in definition of technology data, fundamental research and public domain.
6. Massive Online Courses.
7. GOV and TSU exceptions.
8. Deemed Re-Export Ruling.
9. Presentations—speakers from organizations involved in tracking emerging technologies.
10. Closed Session
11. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 3, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013. This review covers one PRC company, Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (“TMI”) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (“TMM”) (collectively “TMI/TMM”).
Laurel LaCivita or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243 or (202) 482–5848, respectively.
Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off–specification pure” magnesium).
“Off–specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.
Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.
On May 1, 2013, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the PRC for the period
On January 6, 2014, the Department placed on the record information obtained in response to the Department's query to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) concerning imports into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
As noted in the “Background” section above, TMI and TMM each submitted timely-filed certifications indicating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In addition, CBP did not provide any evidence that contradicts TMI or TMM's claim of no shipments.
Based on TMI and TMM's certification and our analysis of CBP information, we preliminarily determine that the single TMI/TMM entity did not have any reviewable entries during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that consistent with its recently announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to TMI/TMM and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Additionally, pursuant to a recently announced refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases, if the Department continues to determine that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI/TMM, which claimed no shipments, the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement off antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012. We preliminarily determine that Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. (Wuxi) and Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Chengde) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Christopher Siepmann, Joseph Shuler, or Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7958, (202) 482–1293, (202) 482–6478, respectively.
The scope of the order consists of OCTG.
The OCTG coupling stock covered by the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00,, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description, available in
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
On May 29, 2013, United States Steel Corporation timely withdrew its request for the 2012 administrative review with respect to all companies except Wuxi and Jiangsu Chengde.
The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we have drawn an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Finally, the Department was not able to make a preliminary determination of countervailability for certain programs because it requires additional information.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for Wuxi and Jiangsu Chengde for the period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.
We preliminarily find the net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using IA ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
For the rescinded companies, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of this notice.
For Wuxi and Jiangsu Chengde, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
If the final results of this review are the same as these preliminary results, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for Wuxi and Jiangsu Chengde. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum:
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on lightweight thermal paper (thermal paper) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies.
Joshua Morris or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1779 or (202) 482–0196, respectively.
On October 1, 2013, the Department initiated the first sunset review of the
On October 28, 2013, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from the petitioner in the investigation, Appvion, Inc.
The Department did not receive any submissions from other interested parties. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B)–(C), the Department is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the
This order covers certain lightweight thermal paper. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. The final determination will be issued 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Fred Baker, Tyler Weinhold, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–1121, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent LTFV investigation of OCTG from Thailand) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on August 22, 2013. We have made no modifications to the scope of the investigations. For more information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export price (CEP) has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, and available information does not permit the calculation of normal value (NV) under 773(a) of the Act, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Further, we determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference to the Vietnam-wide entity in accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
On December 18, 2013, petitioners
As explained in the Initiation Notice, the Department calculated exporter-producer combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we shall direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Vietnam as described in the scope of the investigation. For entries of OCTG produced and exported by SeAH VINA, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all entries of merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As described above, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for imports produced or exported by the Vietnam-wide entity. For the Vietnam-wide entity, in accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for all suspended entries at an
Pursuant to a request from SeAH VINA, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to no more than six months . Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea is not being, or is not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. The Department preliminarily found that critical circumstances do not exist. Finally, in response to a request from petitioners, we are postponing the final determination. The final determination will be issued 135 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the
Victoria Cho or Deborah Scott, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5075 or (202) 482–2657, respectively.
On July 2, 2013, the Department received an antidumping duty (AD) petition
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price (EP) and constructed export price (CEP) have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On December 18, 2013, petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that there is not a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with respect to OCTG from Korea. For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Consistent with section 733(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department has not calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters because it has not made an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value.
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Because the Department has not made an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any entries of OCTG from Korea.
Pursuant to a request from U.S. Steel
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary negative determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Ukraine are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We intend to issue the final determination 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3870.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent antidumping duty OCTG from Thailand investigation) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price (CEP) has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On December 18, 2013, petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Ukraine as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 733(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds CEP, as indicated in the chart above.
Pursuant to a request from Interpipe, the respondent in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of OCTG from Ukraine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods from the Republic of the Turkey (Turkey) are being sold, or are likely to
Catherine Cartsos, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1757.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent antidumping duty investigation involving OCTG from Thailand) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. The petitioners
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices and constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On December 18, 2013, the petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Turkey as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above.
Pursuant to requests from Borusan and Yücel in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of OCTG from Turkey before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. We intend to issue the final determination 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
John Drury or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–3813, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department preliminarily determined the estimated antidumping duty margins in accordance with section 776 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Thailand,” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (WSP), the sole respondent in this investigation, submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on August 22, 2013. We have not made any modifications to the scope of the investigation. For more information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
On October 18, 2013, WSP submitted a letter informing the Department “that WSP will not be responding to the Department of Commerce's August 28, 2013 Request for Information.” Therefore, the Department preliminarily applied adverse facts available to WSP in accordance with section 776 of the Act.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following dumping margins exist:
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Thailand as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the margins indicated in the chart above.
Normally, the Department discloses the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). As the Department preliminarily applied adverse facts available to WSP in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no further calculations to disclose.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 50 days after the date on which the the preliminary determination is published, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
On February 7, 2014, WSP requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-month period.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Saudi Arabia is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. The final determination will be issued 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Jason Rhoads, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0123.
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent antidumping duty investigation on OCTG from Thailand) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding certain “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on August 22, 2013. We have not made any modifications to the scope of the investigation. For more information,
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export price (CEP) has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Saudi Arabia as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds CEP, as indicated in the chart above.
Pursuant to a request from the respondent in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination and extending provisional measures from four to six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods from the Republic of the Philippines (the Philippines) are being sold, or are likely to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0665.
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent antidumping duty investigation involving OCTG from Thailand) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. The petitioners
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On January 7, 2014, the petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1). We have preliminarily determined that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of OCTG from the Philippines. For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from the Philippines as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds export price, as indicated in the chart above.
Pursuant to a request from HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co., Inc., in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports OCTG from the Philippines before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination. The final determination will be issued 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Emily Halle, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0176.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent LTFV investigation of OCTG from Thailand) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. The petitioners
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price (EP) and constructed export price (CEP) are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On December 18, 2013, petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from India as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Pursuant to a request from Jindal SAW, a respondent in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: Casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Thomas Schauer or Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–3477, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the investigation is certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: casing or tubing containing 10.5 percent or more by
The merchandise subject to the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The merchandise subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, 7304.59.80.80, 7305.31.40.00, 7305.31.60.90, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.50.50, and 7306.50.50.70.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
On August 12, 2013, WSP Pipe Co., Ltd. (the sole mandatory respondent in the concurrent OCTG from Thailand antidumping duty investigation) submitted scope comments to the Department regarding “pierced billets” and asked that the Department determine that such merchandise was outside of the scope of this and other OCTG investigations. The petitioners filed rebuttal comments on August 22, 2013. As a result of our analysis of the scope comments, we have not made any modifications to the scope of the investigations. For more information,
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by IA ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of OCTG from Taiwan as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds export price, as indicated in the chart above.
Pursuant to requests from Chung Hung Steel Corp. and Tension Steel Industries Co., Ltd., in this investigation, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of OCTG from Taiwan before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee.
This meeting will be held on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The Committee will develop priorities and guidelines for Council-funded groundfish collaborative research projects to consider fishery related research projects affecting New England groundfish fisheries. Time-permitting, the Committee also might receive updates on collaborative research projects or plans. Other issues also may be discussed. Recommendations from this group may be brought to the full Council for consideration and action, if appropriate.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 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 the collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning the proposed renewal of its Project Progress Report (OMB Control Number 3045–0038) which will expire on September 30, 2015.
This revision reflects CNCS's intent to modify the application for inclusion of a new section to capture the new performance measures as approved by OMB which will capture appropriate data for CNCS's required performance measurement reporting.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attn. Robert Cox, Program Specialist, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to CNCS's reception desk on the 10th floor at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
(3) By fax to: 202–606–3475, Attn. Robert Cox, Program Specialist.
(4) Electronically through CNCS's email address system:
(5) Electronically through
Robert Cox (202–606–6851; or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 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).
The Project Progress Report is designed to assure that current AmeriCorps VISTA sponsors provide the information needed to determine their progress, challenges, successes and technical assistance needs as a sponsor.
CNCS seeks to revise the current form used by AmeriCorps VISTA sponsors to report on the use of AmeriCorps VISTA resources. The average time of response is 15 hours.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Reserve Forces Policy Board, 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 Reserve Forces Policy Board will take place.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 from 8:15 a.m. to 4:20 p.m.
The address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA. An escort may be required as discussed in the meeting accessibility section.
CAPT Steven Knight, Designated Federal Officer, (703) 681–0608 (Voice), (703) 681–0002 (Facsimile), Email—
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (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.
The portion of the meeting from 8:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. will be closed to the public. The closed portion of the meeting from 8:15 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. will consist of remarks to the RFPB from the Director, CAPE; the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Resources); the Secretary of the Air Force; and the Commander, U.S. Northern Command; each of whom will likely address future strategies for use of the Reserve Components, highlighting issues impacting reserve organizations, the right balance of Active and Reserve Component forces, the cost to maintain a strong Reserve Component, their thoughts on the increased emphasis placed on cyber security and the logical mission fit for Reserve Component members. The Cyber Policy Task Group plans to provide an update to the RFPB on its current findings concerning the Services' Active and Reserve force structure, force structure management and how the cyber domain Rules of Engagement could affect the Reserve Components. The open portion of the meeting, from 1:10 p.m. to 4:20 p.m., will consist of remarks from Major General Ranald Munro (UK), Deputy Commander Land Forces (Reserves), British Army, and a representative from the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force. Major General Ranald Munro (UK) from the United Kingdom has been invited to provide remarks on the reforms being made to the British Army. A representative from the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force (“the Commission”) has been invited to provide his or her personal observations and opinions on the Commission's work and its Final Report. The three RFPB subcommittees will also provide updates on their past recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. The Subcommittee on the Operational Reserve plans to provide an update to the RFPB on medical readiness and other operational reserve issues. The Subcommittee on the Homeland plans to provide an update to the RFPB on the Presidential Nominating Convention funding recommendation and other Homeland issues being researched as possible RFPB matters of interest. The Subcommittee on Personnel plans to provide an update to the RFPB on Survivor Benefits Program & Duty Status Recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and discuss findings on Yellow Ribbon Program & other Total Force Policies issues.
Due to difficulties beyond the control of the designated federal officer the meeting announcement requirements of 41 CFR 102–3.150(a) pertaining to the scheduled meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board for March 5, 2014, were not met. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education (OCTE), 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 March 27, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Michelle Meier, 202–245–7890.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the Secretary/Office of the Deputy Secretary (OS), 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 March 27, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202–245–6110.
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
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Applications Available: February 25, 2014.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: March 27, 2014.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: March 18, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 28, 2014.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 25, 2014.
This priority is:
This priority supports projects that enhance, expand, document, evaluate, and disseminate innovative, cohesive models that are based on research and have demonstrated their effectiveness in (1) integrating standards-based arts education into the core elementary or middle school curriculum, (2) strengthening standards-based arts instruction in the elementary or middle school grades, and (3) improving the academic performance of students in elementary or middle school grades, including their skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts.
In order to meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the model project for which it seeks funding (1) serves only elementary school or middle school grades, or both, and (2) is linked to State and national standards intended to enable all students to meet challenging expectations and to improve student and school performance.
The term “national standards” was used in the notice of final priority, requirements, and definitions for this program, published in the
An applicant must identify in the project narrative section of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning the competitive preference priority points.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Improving student achievement (as defined in this notice) in persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice).
(b) Providing services to students enrolled in persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice).
For the purposes of this priority, the Department considers schools that are identified as Tier I or Tier II schools under the School Improvement Grants program (see 75 FR 66363) as part of a State's approved FY 2009, FY 2010, or FY 2011 applications to be persistently lowest-achieving schools. A list of these Tier I and Tier II schools can be found on the Department's Web site at
Projects that are designed to improve student achievement (as defined in this notice) or teacher effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools or materials, which may include preparing teachers to use the technology to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or evaluating digital tools or materials.
(i) There is at least one study that is a—
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (a) found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
To identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both: (i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and (ii) the school's lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
20 U.S.C. 7271.
(b) The Education Department suspension and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The notice of final priority, requirements, and definitions for this program, published in the
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
In recognition of the increased rigor of the expected evaluation design, projects may decide to use the first 12 months of the project period in order to refine the evaluation design, build capacity to execute the evaluation, and ensure that program design and implementation is aligned with the evaluation requirements.
1.
• A State or local non-profit or governmental arts organization.
• A State educational agency (SEA) or regional educational service agency.
• An institution of higher education.
• A public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization; or
(2) One or more State or local non-profit or governmental arts organizations that must work in partnership with one or more LEAs and may partner with one or more of the following:
• An SEA or regional educational service agency.
• An institution of higher education.
• A public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization.
If more than one LEA or arts organization wishes to form a consortium and jointly submit a single application, they must follow the procedures for group applications described in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 of EDGAR.
2. a.
b.
This requirement has the effect of requiring grantees to use a restricted indirect cost rate, according to the requirements in 34 CFR 75.563 and 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569. The restricted indirect cost rate excludes certain costs from the rate that otherwise would be recovered under a standard indirect cost rate. As soon as applicants decide to apply, they are urged to contact the ED Indirect Cost Group at (202) 377–3840 for guidance about obtaining a restricted indirect cost rate to use on the Budget Information form (ED Form 524) included with the application package.
c.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.351D.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2. a.
Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if it has a better understanding of the number of entities that intend to apply for funding under this program. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify the Department by sending a short email message indicating the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding. The email need not include information regarding the content of the proposed application, only the applicant's intent to submit it. This email notification should be sent to Asheley McBride at
Applicants that fail to provide this email notification may still apply for funding. Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
b.
We plan on posting the project narrative section of funded AEMDD applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: March 27, 2014.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: March 18, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 28, 2014.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5. We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)) the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at:
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Asheley McBride, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W240, Washington, DC 20202–5950. FAX: (202) 205–5631.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351D), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
(1)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project by considering the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.
(b) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(2)
(a) The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.
(3)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project by considering the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practices.
(b) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice).
(c) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.
(d) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.
(4)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(5)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project by considering the following factors:
(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(b) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(c) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(6)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project by considering the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(c) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well-implemented, produce evidence of promise (as defined in this notice).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.
5.
Asheley McBride, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W240, Washington, DC 20202–5950. Telephone: (202) 453–6850 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) and information pertaining to members of the public submitting third-party written and oral comments.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8072, Washington, DC 20006.
• The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2, Part H, Title IV, of the HEA, as amended.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations or a specific State approval agency.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the June 18–19, 2014 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI); and provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments and on requesting to make oral comments at the meeting. The notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Section 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
Below is a list of agencies, including their current and requested scopes of recognition, scheduled for review during the June 18–19, 2014 meeting:
1. Commission on Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) (Requested Scope: The accreditation of educator preparation programs in degree-granting institutions of higher education throughout the United States that offer certificates/licensure, or an associate's, bachelor's, master's, post-baccalaureate, and doctoral degrees including those offered via distance education.)
1. National Association of Schools of Dance (NASD), Commission on Accreditation (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions, and units offering dance and dance-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering dance and dance-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance and correspondence education.)
2. National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions, and units offering music and music-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering music and music-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance and correspondence education.)
3. National Association of Schools of Theater (NAST), Commission on Accreditation (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions, and units offering theatre and theatre-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering theatre and theatre-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance and correspondence education.)
1. The Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”), at the undergraduate level, of institutions of biblical higher education in the United States offering both campus-based and distance education instructional programs.)
2. Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) (Current and Requested Scope: Accreditation of nursing education programs and schools, both postsecondary and higher degree, which offer a certificate, diploma, or a recognized professional degree including clinical doctorate, masters, baccalaureate, associate, diploma, and practical nursing programs in the United States and its territories, including those offered via distance education.)
3. Accreditation Commission for Midwifery Education (ACME) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and pre-accreditation of basic certificate, basic graduate nurse-midwifery, direct entry midwifery, and pre-certification nurse-midwifery education programs, including those programs that offer distance education.)
4. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation, within the United States, of professional degree programs in pharmacy leading to the degree of Doctor of Pharmacy, including those programs offered via distance education.)
5. American Physical Therapy Association, Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) in the United States of physical therapist education programs leading to the first professional degree at the master's or doctoral level and physical therapist assistant education programs at the associate degree level and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education.)
6. Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation of nursing education programs in the United States, at the baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral levels, including programs offering distance education.)
7. Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)
(Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation of medical education programs within the United States leading to the M.D. degree.)
8. Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools (MS–CSS) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation of institutions with postsecondary, non-degree granting career and technology programs in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to include the accreditation of postsecondary, non-degree granting institutions that offer all or part of their educational programs via distance education modalities.)
9. National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), Commission on Accreditation (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.) (Requested Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions and units offering art/design and art/design-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance and correspondence education.)
10. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACSCOC) (Current and Requested Scope: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of degree-granting institutions of higher education in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, including the accreditation of programs offered via distance and correspondence education within these institutions. This recognition extends to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees and the Appeals Committee of the College Delegate Assembly on cases of initial candidacy or initial accreditation and for continued accreditation or candidacy.)
1. The name, title, affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and Web site (if any) of the person/group requesting to speak; and,
2. A brief summary of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation.
Carol Griffiths, Executive Director, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8073, Washington, DC 20006–8129, telephone: (202) 219–7035, fax: (202) 219–7005, or email
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Record of Decision (ROD).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to issue loan guarantees under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) totaling approximately $8.3 billion to one or more of the following applicants for the construction and start-up of the proposed Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 advanced nuclear reactors for the production of electrical power in Burke County, Georgia: Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and its subsidiaries. The VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be located in a rural area in eastern Burke County, Georgia, which is the site of two operating nuclear reactor units (VEGP Units 1 and 2). A new 55-mile, 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line would be constructed to bring power from the switchyard for the new units to the Thomson substation 20 miles west of Augusta, Georgia. The potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed project, including the transmission line, were analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the
Copies of this ROD and DOE/EIS–0476 may be obtained by contacting Sharon R. Thomas, NEPA Document Manager, Environmental Compliance Division, Loan Programs Office (LP–10), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone 202–586–5335; or email
Georgia Power Corporation (GPC), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC), and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) and its subsidiaries have submitted separate applications for loan guarantees totaling approximately $8.3 billion in response to a solicitation issued by DOE in 2008 under its authority established by Title XVII of EPAct 2005. An organization consisting of Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), Southern Company Services (SCS), and GPC personnel was established to oversee and staff the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 (the Project). The new reactor units, currently under construction, are licensed to and would be operated by SNC. GPC would construct a transmission line to bring power from the switchyard for the new units to the Thomson substation 20 miles west of Augusta, Georgia. The transmission line right-of-way would be approximately 150 feet wide, 55 miles long, and have approximately 225 transmission towers.
In August 2006, SNC submitted an application to NRC for an ESP for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. The NRC prepared an EIS pursuant to NEPA § 102(2)(C), and issued an FEIS in August 2008 (NUREG–1872). On August 26, 2009, NRC issued the ESP. In March 2008, SNC submitted an application to the NRC for COLs, and in March 2011, NRC issued a final SEIS for the COLs (NUREG–1947).
In September 2008, the applicants submitted a Part I Application to the DOE Loan Programs Office (LPO) for a loan guarantee in response to the DOE Loan Guarantee Solicitation Announcement titled “Federal Loan Guarantee for Nuclear Power Facilities” (Reference Number: DE–FOA–0000006). In December 2008, the applicants submitted Part II of their application.
DOE reviewed the NRC EISs and determined that the project analyzed in the EISs was substantially the same as the project that would be covered by the DOE loan guarantees. DOE did not participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the NRC EISs; therefore, in accordance with DOE's NEPA regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1021), DOE conducted an independent review of the NRC EISs and related documents for the purpose of determining whether DOE could adopt them pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1506.3. DOE adopted and re-circulated the NRC EISs as a single, final DOE EIS (DOE/EIS–0476). See EPA's Notice of Adoption at 77 FR 9652 (2/17/12).
In addition to its adoption of the NRC EISs, DOE considered various sources of information to satisfy its obligations under NEPA, including the following: The Safety Analysis Report prepared by SNC (see NRC Agency Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML11180A100); the Standard Design Certification for the AP1000 nuclear reactor design developed by the design contractor, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (see ADAMS ML11171A500); the Safety Evaluation Report, prepared by NRC (see ADAMS ML110450302); the Independent Engineer Reports prepared by DOE's independent engineering firm (MPR Associates Inc.; Report MPR–3367 Rev.4, April 2013, and supplement dated October 9, 2013); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 12 (project number SAS–2012–01016) and application for Nationwide Permit 12, Pre-Construction Notification, Thomson-Vogtle 500kV Transmission Line.
As part of its NEPA review, DOE considered the potential impacts of the transmission line in consultation with the USACE during the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process. DOE was party to consultation between the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office and the USACE, conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and consulted with the USACE regarding its review of impacts to federally-listed threatened and endangered species in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USACE completed the Section 106 process, determined that there would be no effect on federally-listed species, and authorized the proposed activity under Nationwide Permit No. 12 on September 26, 2013.
The Proposed Action in the NRC EISs was for NRC to issue licenses that would authorize the applicants to construct, operate, and decommission the proposed project. Several alternatives were considered by the NRC, including: (1) The No Action Alternative, under which the proposed project would not be constructed, operated, and decommissioned at the VEGP site; (2) energy source alternatives; and (3) system design alternatives. These alternatives were eliminated from further consideration because they did not offer any environmental advantage over the proposed action, did not provide a sufficient amount of power generation to meet expected demand, or did not meet the need for a reliable and economical source of power generation.
The DOE decision is whether or not to issue loan guarantees to one or more of the applicants named above to support construction and startup of the Project as identified in DOE/EIS–0476 and authorized under the NRC COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4, respectively. Accordingly, the DOE alternatives are (1) the Proposed Action, to issue loan guarantees to the applicants for the Project, and (2) the No Action Alternative, i.e., no loan guarantees.
DOE has decided that its Proposed Action, to issue loan guarantees for construction and startup of the Project, is environmentally preferable. This alternative offers environmental benefits consistent with the statutory objectives of Title XVII of EPAct 2005, which include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to coal-fired and natural-gas-fired sources producing the same amount of base-load power, annual carbon dioxide (CO
DOE received two letters concerning its adoption of the NRC EISs as DOE/EIS–0476. The comment letters included a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 and a letter from the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL).
EPA expressed a concern regarding storage, transportation and disposal of radioactive wastes, and spent fuel, which at this time does not have an approved site for disposal. Efforts by DOE and NRC to address the issue of how to manage spent fuel are ongoing and are summarized below.
NRC has the regulatory authority to determine if spent fuel can be stored safely at its licensed facilities. DOE will continue to monitor the NRC WCR environmental review and rulemaking, and DOE's loan guarantee agreements will require that the Project comply with any new regulatory or license conditions.
In addition to the safety and environmental review performed by NRC in the licensing process, DOE considered other sources of information regarding the safety and security of spent fuel at the proposed Project and the potential environmental effects of long-term spent nuclear fuel storage in the on-site storage facilities. NRC's review included a safety evaluation of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 and the AP1000 reactor design to assess risks, including those from spent fuel pool fires or leaks. DOE also reviewed reports developed by the independent engineering firm, MPR Associates Inc., completed as part of the due diligence process for the loan guarantees for the Project. The independent engineering firm confirmed that there were reasonable plans to safely store spent fuel and stated that possible post-Fukushima actions (e.g., modification of spent fuel pool water level indication) should be straightforward to integrate into the AP1000 if NRC should require changes. Each of the two proposed AP1000 units has the pool capacity to store 17 years of spent fuel. The independent engineering firm also examined the potential of the dry fuel storage facility for VEGP Units 1 and 2 to be used for spent fuel casks from proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. A general license for operating an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) has been authorized by NRC and is being built for VEGP Units 1 and 2. The ISFSI will accommodate storage of the reactor fuel from Vogtle Units 1 and 2 for the first 60 years of operation (i.e., 120 reactor years for two units) with expansion capacity for an additional 40 years. If required, this capacity could be available to meet at least part of VEGP Units 3 and 4 dry fuel cask storage needs, although there are no plans to do so at this time and this use would potentially require a license amendment. Additional dry storage capacity for the VEGP Units 3 and 4 would be developed in the long term, if needed.
DOE also reviewed information regarding potential impacts of long-term spent fuel storage found in the No Action Alternative of the
BREDL provided comments pertinent to the NEPA environmental review that DOE addresses below. BREDL also submitted comments questioning the eligibility of the Project design as an innovative technology, DOE's ability to secure the debt obligation, and the integrity of DOE's due diligence process, none of which has any bearing on the NEPA environmental review process. In reviewing completed loan guarantee applications and in selecting those to whom a guarantee will be offered, DOE applies the criteria set forth in Title XVII of EPAct 2005, the implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 609, and the applicable solicitation issued by DOE. DOE's due diligence process for evaluating potential loan guarantees includes a rigorous analysis of the proposed project including, but not limited to, its legal, financial, technical, environmental, regulatory, credit and market aspects. Subject to continuing due diligence, DOE establishes a project's eligibility and the reasonable prospect of loan repayment early in this process, before DOE conditionally commits to pursuing the documentation and underwriting of a loan guarantee. As such, DOE's due diligence and internal approval process for the Project has included an evaluation that fully addressed BREDL's concerns. BREDL's summarized comments (C) relevant to DOE/EIS–0476 and DOE's responses (R) are included below:
1. C: DOE must consider the Environmental Justice requirements of Executive Order 12898 in its decision making.
R: Low income and minority populations exist within the census tracts in a 50-mile radius of the Project site. In reviewing the NRC EISs, DOE considered the environmental impacts of the action and whether these populations would suffer disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts. The NRC EISs analyzed the potential effects of the plant during construction and operation and the mitigations to be enacted by the Project operators. NRC determined and DOE concurs that the potential adverse effects would be generally small and would not disproportionately affect the census tracts with higher low-income and minority populations.
2. C: The design chosen for the new units fails to avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants and anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the uranium fuel cycle uses fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.
R: The NRC SEIS included a comparison of emissions from a nuclear power plant (including the fuel cycle processes) to those from similarly sized fossil fuel plants and demonstrated that the nuclear plant has approximately 1/10th the annual CO
3. C: The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant will not meet Clean Air Act standards. Without maximum achievable control technology, routine emissions from the plant would be excessive especially when considered in addition to the existing site-wide radioactive emission levels.
R: The Project is required to meet Clean Air Act standards and obtain a permit for operations that generate non-radioactive pollutants, such as emergency generators. EPA has determined that the radionuclide emissions of the plant are best regulated by the authority given to NRC. On September 5, 1995 (60 FR 46206), EPA amended the Clean Air Act's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for radionuclide emissions to exempt nuclear power reactors which are licensed by the NRC. On December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68972), EPA amended the 40 CFR 61 Subpart I Radionuclide NESHAP so that it no longer applies to operations licensed by the NRC or NRC Agreement States. EPA has concluded that the NRC regulatory program controlling air emissions of radionuclides from nuclear power reactors will ensure that resultant doses will consistently and predictably be below the levels which EPA has determined are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
4. C: Southern Nuclear does not properly account for the higher levels of morbidity and mortality in females and infants caused by low levels of radiation.
R: While children and fetuses are more sensitive to the effects of radiation, the radiation protection standards applicable at the site for members of the general public take into account the differences in sensitivity due to age and gender, including females and infants.
DOE has decided to select the Proposed Action to issue loan guarantees to one or more of the following applicants for the construction and start-up of the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 in Burke County, Georgia, as identified in DOE/EIS–0476 and authorized under the NRC COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92: Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and its subsidiaries. Approval of loan guarantees for the Project responds to the DOE purpose and need pursuant to Title XVII, Section 1703 of EPAct 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511–16514), which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make loan guarantees for projects that (1) avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and (2) employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued. The Section 1703 DOE loan guarantee program aims to accelerate the commercialization of innovative, environmentally-friendly technologies that will support clean, affordable, and reliable supplies of energy. The purpose and need for DOE's loan guarantee action is to comply with DOE's mandate under Title XVII of EPAct 2005 by selecting projects that meet the goals of the Act.
The Project for which DOE has decided to issue loan guarantees includes all mitigation measures, terms, and conditions applied by the NRC in its COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92, as well as mitigation and avoidance measures imposed by the USACE in its Nationwide Permit No. 12 for the proposed transmission line. The mitigation measures, terms, and conditions represent practicable means by which to avoid or minimize environmental impacts from the selected alternative. NRC is responsible for ensuring compliance with all adopted mitigation measures, terms, and conditions for the Project set forth in the NRC COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. Sections 4.10 (Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Site-Preparation Activities and Construction) and 5.11 (Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation) of the adopted NRC EISs (DOE/EIS–0476) contain the mitigation measures, terms, and conditions developed in accordance with NEPA.
DOE's loan guarantee agreements require the loan guarantee recipients to comply with all applicable laws, authorizations, and approvals, including the terms of the NRC COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92 and the USACE permit for the proposed transmission line, including mitigation measures contained therein. Any additional future requirements imposed by the NRC would also be required by the loan guarantee agreements for the Project. A recipient's failure to comply with applicable laws, authorizations, and approvals would constitute a default, upon which DOE would have the right under the loan guarantee agreement to exercise usual and customary remedies. To ensure a recipient complies with the requirements of the loan guarantee agreement, the Loan Programs Office proactively monitors all operative loan guarantee transactions.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, March 12, 2014: 12:00 p.m.–5:45 p.m. (EST), Thursday, March 13, 2014; 8:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m. (EST).
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 4301 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G–017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586–1060 or Email:
You may submit comments, identified by “
•
•
•
•
The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. You must also explain the reasons why you believe the deleted information is exempt from disclosure.
DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).
Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, March 13, 2014; 9:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. Friday, March 14, 2014; 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m.
Doubletree Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
John Kogut, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC–25/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–1290; Telephone: (301) 903–1298.
• Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Program.
• Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics Program.
• Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy Physics.
• Public Comment (10-minute rule).
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the
Hotel Galvez, East Parlor Room, 2024 Seawall Blvd., Galveston, TX 77550.
Lou Capitanio, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEEEEE) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2383.03, OMB Control No. 2060–0659) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0317, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–4113; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2., the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) is a necessary committee which is in the public interest. Accordingly, the FRRCC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. Inquiries may be directed to Sarah Bittleman, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
An Exposure Modeling Public Meeting will be held for 1 day on March 24, 2014. This notice announces the location and time for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on March 24, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before March 7, 2014.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South Building), First Floor Conference Center (S–1204/06), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Melanie Biscoe, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7106; fax number: (703) 347–8011; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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:
• Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (NAICS code 11).
• Utilities (NAICS code 22).
• Professional, scientific and technical (NAICS code 54).
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0879, is available at
On a biannual interval, an Exposure Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the “empmlist” forum on the LYRIS list server at
You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under
1. Estimating the magnitude of pesticide effects on avian reproductive success: Markov chain nest productivity model (MCnest).
2. The Surface Water Concentration Calculator.
3. Development of a conceptual model for estimating aquatic exposure from the use of pesticides on rice using the Pesticide Flooded Application Model.
4. Evaluation of NAFTA kinetics guidance.
5. Comparison of multiple spray drift deposition data sets.
6. Guidance on modeling offsite deposition of pesticides via spray drift.
7. Use of the OECD ENASGIPS tool in U.S. settings.
8. A better sorption model for predicting pesticide behavior.
9. The significance of time-dependent sorption on leaching potential: A comparison of measured field results and modeled estimates.
10. Evaluation of PRZM–GW using long-term ground water monitoring data.
11. Comparing ground water models—why are there differences?
12. Modeling pesticide fate and transport through flowing water bodies for endangered species assessment in the California Central Valley.
13. Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM) pilot project update.
14. EPA PRZM–GW Evaluation.
Environmental protection, Endangered species assessment, Exposure modeling, Groundwater, Leaching, Pesticide exposure assessment, Pesticide monitoring, Spray drift.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (“Plaintiffs”), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by March 27, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OGC–2014–0168, online at
Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–1272; fax number (202) 564–5603; email address:
The proposed consent decree would settle Plaintiffs' claims in a deadline suit alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties pursuant to section 130 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7430, to review, and, if necessary, revise the emission factors for VOC, CO, and NO
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.
Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OGC–2014–0168 which contains a copy of the consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center,
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection provides Ex-Im Bank staff with the information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported goods covered under its short and medium-term export credit insurance policies. It also alerts Ex-Im Bank staff of defaults, so they can manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
Form can be viewed at
Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection provides Ex-Im Bank staff with the information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported goods covered under its short and medium-term export credit insurance policies. It also alerts Ex-Im Bank staff of defaults, so they can manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
Form can be viewed at
Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Federal Election Commission.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting 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 Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694–1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
60-Day Notice and Request for Comments.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce the paperwork burden of grant applicants and awardees in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. The information collection requests are FMCS forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF–424), Accounting System and Financial Capability Questionnaire (LM–3), Request for Advance or Reimbursement SF–270 (LM–6), Financial Status Report SF–269a (LM–7), Project Performance (LM–8), and Grants Program Grantee Evaluation Questionnaire (LM–9). This information collection activity was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is requesting a reinstatement without change to the collection. This collection was assigned the control number 3076–0006.
Comments on this information collection must be received within 60 days of the
Submit written comments by mail to the Labor-Management Cooperation Grants Program, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20427 or by contacting the person whose name appears under the section headed,
Linda Gray-Broughton, Grants Specialist, FMCS, 2100 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20427. Telephone number (202) 606–8181, email to
Copies of the complete agency forms are available from the Labor-Management Cooperation Grants Program by calling, faxing, or writing Linda Gray-Broughton at the address above. Please ask for forms by agency number.
FMCS is seeking comments on the following information collection requests contained in FMCS agency forms.
b. To conduct the quarterly submissions, LM–7and LM–8 forms are used. Less than quarterly reports would deprive FMCS of the opportunity to provide prompt technical assistance to deal with those problems identified in the report.
c. Once per application. The LM–3 is the only form to which a “similar information” requirement could apply. Acceptance of a recent audit report without deficiencies is acceptable.
The collected information is used by FMCS to determine annual applicant suitability, to monitor quarterly grant project status, and for on-going program evaluation. If the information were not collected, there could be no accounting for the activities of the program. Actual use has been the same as intended use.
The FMCS is particularly interested in comments which:
(i) 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;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic and fax submission of responses.
Labor-Management Cooperation Grant Program and Information Collection Requests.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2014–03159) published on page 8718 of the issue for Thursday, February 13, 2014.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta heading, the entry for John W. Langdale, Jr., Trust, Margaret E. Langdale Trust, and Lee L. Mikuta Trust, all of Valdosta, Georgia, is revised to read as follows:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 11, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 21, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
Little Rock, Arkansas.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 12, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. Appendix 2, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, March 13, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, Washington, DC 20201.
Ivor Pritchard, Ph.D., Director (Acting), Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), or Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; 240–453–8141; fax: 240–453–6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday March 12. Following opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, OHRP Director, and Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, SACHRP Chair, the Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) will give their report, presenting recommendations on cluster randomized trials and informed consent.
SOH was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and is charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination.
The afternoon presentation will focus on a discussion of cluster randomization, risk assessment, and consent requirements.
Following opening remarks on the morning of March 13, the Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) will give their report, focusing on recommendations for a remodeled concept of engagement in human subjects research. SAS is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment; this subcommittee was established by SACHRP in October 2006.
Public attendance at the meeting is 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 SACHRP at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comment during the public comment periods; pre-registration is required for participation in the public comment
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Federal Steering Committee for the Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections (HAI), proposes new targets for the acute care hospital measures for the
HHS invites public and private health-related professionals, organizations, and consumer representatives to submit written comments on the proposed 2020 HAI acute care hospital targets, found at
Comments on the proposed HAI 2020 acute care hospital targets must be received no later than 5 p.m. on March 27, 2014.
Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Daniel Gallardo, Health Policy Fellow, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion via electronic mail at
In recognition of HAIs as an important public health and patient safety issue, in July 2008 HHS established the Federal Steering Committee for the Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections, led by Dr. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The Steering Committee was charged with developing a comprehensive strategy to prevent and reduce HAIs and developing a plan which established national five-year targeted goals for HAI prevention and outlined key actions for achieving identified short- and long-term objectives.
The first iteration of the HAI Action Plan was published in 2009 and focused on addressing six high priority HAI-related areas within the acute care hospital setting: Surgical site infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated events (formerly ventilator-associated pneumonia), catheter-associated urinary tract infections,
In April 2013, ODPHP, on behalf of the Steering Committee, released a revised HAI Action Plan reflecting a significant update and expansion from the initial version. In addition to documenting the progress toward achieving the original five-year acute care hospital HAI targets, the updated HAI Action Plan included new sections specific to infection reduction in ambulatory surgical centers, end-stage renal disease facilities, and long-term care facilities, as well as a section on increasing influenza vaccination of health care personnel.
With the expiration of the HAI Action Plan acute care hospitals time period for measuring the initial goals occurring at the end of 2013, the Steering Committee has identified new five-year goals to measure national progress in HAI reduction. The new goals will continue to use data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) as well as data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Program (HCUP). The new targets will set baseline rates using data from 2015 and establish goals to be achieved by December 2020. The proposed targets take into account HAI reductions to date and will reflect progress that takes place between 2013 and 2015. Selecting a single baseline year for measuring progress toward the targeted goals in acute care hospitals—and using that same baseline year for purposes of quality measure reporting to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and public reporting on CMS's Hospital Compare Web site—will improve consistency in federal HAI measurement and reporting efforts. The proposed targets are intended to align with the HAI targets in Healthy People 2020 as well as other Departmental initiatives.
The Steering Committee has provided a template for all acute care hospital HAI targets, which is available at
Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments for each acute care hospital HAI measure. Written feedback should not exceed more than two pages per HAI measure. To be considered, the person or representative from the organization must self-identify and submit the written comments by close of business on March 27, 2014.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS)—(OMB No. 0920–0770, exp. 05/31/2014)—Extension—National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The purpose of this data collection is to monitor behaviors of persons at high risk for infection that are related to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission and prevention in United States.
The primary objectives of the NHBS system are to obtain data from samples of persons at risk to: (a) Describe the prevalence and trends in risk behaviors; (b) describe the prevalence of and trends in HIV testing and HIV infection; (c) describe the prevalence of and trends in use of HIV prevention services; (d) identify met and unmet needs for HIV prevention services in order to inform health departments, community-based organizations, community planning groups and other stakeholders. By describing and monitoring the HIV risk behaviors, HIV seroprevalence and incidence, and HIV prevention experiences of persons at highest risk for HIV infection, NHBS provides an important data source for evaluating progress towards national public health goals, such as reducing new infections, increasing the use of condoms, and targeting high risk groups.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention request approval for a 3-year extension of this information collection. Data are collected through anonymous, in-person interviews conducted with persons systematically selected from 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) throughout the United States; these 25 MSAs were chosen based on having high AIDS prevalence. Persons at risk for HIV infection to be interviewed for NHBS include men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDUs), and heterosexuals at increased risk of HIV (HET). A brief screening interview will be used to determine eligibility for participation in the behavioral assessment. The data from the behavioral assessment will provide (1) estimates of behavior related to the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, (2) prior testing for HIV, and (3) use of HIV prevention services.
All persons interviewed will also be offered an HIV test and will participate in a pre-test counseling session. No other federal agency systematically collects this type of information from persons at risk for HIV infection. These data have substantial impact on prevention program development and monitoring at the local, state, and national levels.
CDC estimates that NHBS will involve, per year in each of the 25 MSAs, eligibility screening for 50 to 200 persons and eligibility screening plus the behavioral assessment with 500 eligible respondents, resulting in a total of 37,500 eligible survey respondents and 7,500 ineligible screened persons during a 3-year period. Data collection will rotate such that interviews will be conducted among one group per year: MSM in year 1, IDU in year 2, and HET in year 3. The type of data collected for each group will vary slightly due to different sampling methods and risk characteristics of the group.
Participation of respondents is voluntary and there is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
Total burden hours are 9,932.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
Select Agent Distribution Activity (SADA): Request for Select Agent (OMB Control No. 0920–0591 exp. 7/31/2014)—Extension—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is requesting approval to continue data collection under the Select Agent Distribution Activity (SADA). The purpose of this data collection is to provide a systematic and consistent mechanism to review requests that come to CDC for Select Agents.
The term select agents is used to describe a limited group of viruses, bacteria, rickettsia, and toxins that have the potential for use as agents of bioterrorism, inflicting significant morbidity and mortality on susceptible populations. The SADA form is scheduled to expire on 07/31/2014.
SADA was originally created for the anticipated large number of requests for select agents by investigators seeking National Institutes of Health grants. The process was established to lessen the burden on CDC Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who would be receiving requests for access to select agents housed within NCEZID.
The SADA application is a Material Transfer Agreement that is specific to select agent requests. Although the SADA Office has not received a new application since the last Office of Management and Budget (OMB) request, they have received several inquiries and provided assistance to both internal SMEs as well as outside requestors. CDC has deposited a variety of strains into the Biodefense and Emerging Infections (BEI) Research Resources Repository and requestors now have the option of requesting materials using this mechanism. However, CDC would like to maintain the ability to process requests if they receive them and is, therefore, making a request to use the SADA application indefinitely.
The number of potential respondents in a given year is unknown. The estimates below are based on
The cost to the respondent will vary based on which agent is requested.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Surveys of State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agencies (OMB Control No. 0920–0879, Exp. 3/31/2014)—Revision—Office of the Director, Office for State, Tribal Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's mission is to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health—through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats. CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by collaborating with partners throughout the nation and the world to: monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.
CDC is requesting a three-year approval for a generic clearance to collect information related to domestic public health issues and services that affect and/or involve state, tribal, local and territorial (STLT) government entities. The respondent universe is comprised of STLT governmental staff or delegates acting on behalf of a STLT agency involved in the provision of essential public health services in the United States. The STLT agency is represented by state, tribal, local or territorial governmental entity or delegate with a task to protect and/or improve the public's health.
Information will be used to assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies; make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies; fill CDC gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will
CDC estimates up to 30 data collections with State, territorial or tribal governmental staff or delegates, and 10 data collections with local/county/city governmental staff or delegate will be conducted on an annual basis. Ninety-five percent of these data collections will be web-based. The total annualized burden of 54,000 hours is based on the following estimates.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS–D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; comments may also be sent by email to
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarify of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
National Disease Surveillance Program II. Disease Summaries (0920–0004 Exp. 8/31/2014)—Revision—National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC requests a three year approval for a Revision of the National Disease Surveillance Program II. Disease Summaries information collection.
Proposed revisions include shifting information collection management responsibilities to the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD) and consolidating various forms to reflect more current technology trends. Also, CDC requests the use of the following new Influenza forms to enhance surveillance and assist in understanding the complexities of these newer viruses: Human Infection with Novel Influenza A Virus Severe Outcomes; Human Infection with Novel Influenza A Virus with Suspected Avian Source; and Antiviral Resistant Influenza Infection Case Report Form.
Due to the uncertainty regarding MERS-CoV and its threat to human health, CDC also has a need to use a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) [Patient Under Investigation] form. Use of an Adenovirus Typing Report Form and discontinuing the use of the Harmful Algal Bloom-related Illness form is also requested. The Adenovirus Typing Report Form allows for a passive surveillance mechanism that collects adenovirus typing data to enhance adenovirus circulation data already collected by the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS).
The methodology for reporting varies depending on the occurrence, modes of transmission, infectious agents, and epidemiologic measures.
There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
The total estimated annualized burden hours are 31,921.
In developing procedures for collecting the necessary information from potential child victims of trafficking, their case managers, attorneys, or other representatives to allow HHS to grant interim eligibility, HHS devised a form. HHS has determined that the use of a standard form to collect information is the best way to ensure requestors are notified of their option to request assistance for child victims of trafficking and to make prompt and consistent determinations about the child's eligibility for assistance.
Specifically, the form asks the requestor for his or her identifying information, information on the child, and information describing the type of trafficking and circumstances surrounding the situation. The form also asks the requestor to verify the information contained in the form because the information could be the basis for a determination of an alien child's eligibility for federally funded benefits. Finally, the form takes into consideration the need to compile information regarding a child's circumstances and experiences in a non-directive, child-friendly way, and assists the potential requestor in assessing whether the child may have been subjected to trafficking in persons.
The information provided through the completion of a Request for Assistance for Child Victims of Human Trafficking form will enable HHS to make prompt determinations regarding the eligibility of an alien child for interim assistance, inform HHS' determination regarding the child's eligibility for assistance as a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, facilitate the required consultation process, and enable HHS to assess and address potential child protection issues.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 27, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On August 1, 2011, the Pet Event Tracking Network (PETNet) was launched by FDA and its partners in the Partnership for Food Protection (PFP). PETNet is a secure, Web-based network that allows information to be exchanged more freely and efficiently between FDA and other Federal and State regulatory Agencies. PETNet allows the exchange of information about pet food related incidents, such as illness associated with the consumption of pet food or pet food product defects. PETNet is only accessible by government employees with membership rights, and each member has equal access to the data in the system. At its launch, the system had over 200 members representing 4 Federal Agencies, all 50 States, and 3 U.S. territories. Using the shared information, State and Federal Agencies can work together to quickly determine if regulatory actions are needed to prevent or quickly limit adverse effects associated with pet food products.
Since its launch, PETNet has seen increased usage among members. Two years following the launch of the system, there have been reports entered by two Federal Agencies and multiple states. Approximately 60 percent of the entries are from Federal Agency members and 40 percent by State Agency members. The majority of entries in PETNet are associated with dog food products, followed by cat food products, products affecting species “other” than those available in the drop-down menu choices, and small mammal products. As familiarity with PETNet has increased, there has been increased usage and entries from members.
PETNet was originally developed for pet animals only, but after its initial launch in 2011, there have been ongoing requests to expand the system to include livestock animals, aquaculture species, and horses. Such an early alert system does not currently exist to share information related to illness associated with consumption of adulterated food or product defects for these species. LivestockNet has been developed to serve as a similar early alert system for
LivestockNet and PETNet will be Web-based portals with the same functionality, but the questions asked for each portal will be specific for each. Users of the individual portals are expected to be the same officials from Federal, State, and Territorial Agencies. Because of the similarity of the portals and the intended audience for both, the two individual portals will be housed in an overall system titled the Animal Feed Network. PETNet and LivestockNet will be able to be accessed individually in the Animal Feed Network, once the user logs in to the system.
Use of the Animal Feed Network, including the reporting of incidents by non-FDA members, will continue to be voluntary. The Animal Feed Network is a Web-based system, based in a proprietary system using CORESHIELD technology, and will be accessible only to members via password. PETNet and LivestockNet will make use of standardized electronic forms that have been custom developed for the individual portals. The two forms share the following common data elements, the majority of which are drop down menu choices: Product details (name of feed, lot code, product form, and the manufacturer or distributor/packer (if known)), the species affected, number of animals exposed to the product, number of animals affected, body systems affected, product problem/defect, date of onset or the date product problem was detected, the State where the incident occurred, the origin of the information, whether there are supporting laboratory results, and contact information for the reporting member (i.e., name, telephone number will be captured automatically when member logs in to the system). For the LivestockNet form, additional data elements specific to livestock animals will be captured: Product details (indication of whether the feed is a medicated feed, product packaging, and intended purpose of the feed), class of the animal species affected, and production loss. For PETNet, the only additional data field is the animal life stage. The form would be filled out and submitted by a member in the specified portal of the Animal Feed Network. Once the entry is submitted, it will be available to other members. Thus, the information will be entered and received by Animal Feed Network members in as close to real time as possible. FDA and the PFP have designed the form itself to contain only the essential information necessary to alert Animal Feed Network members about animal feed and pet food-related incidents.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that each member will report to the Animal Feed Network (i.e., fill out the PETNet or LivestockNet form to alert other members about a pet food or animal food-related incident, respectively) approximately five times per year for each portal. This estimate represents the maximum number of reports that FDA expects will be submitted in a year, and in many cases the number of reports submitted by a member will probably be far less. FDA believes that, given the PETNet form has 15 items and the LivestockNet form has 19 items, with most being drop down fields and not all fields being required for submission, 15 minutes is a sufficient amount of time to complete the form. State regulatory officials responsible for animal feed and pet food already possess computer systems and have the Internet access necessary to participate in the Animal Feed Network, and thus there are no capital expenditures associated with the reporting.
Regarding recordkeeping, State regulatory officials who report in the Animal Feed Network receive the reportable information from consumers in their States in the course of their customary and regular duties. Further, these individuals already maintain records of such consumer complaints in the course of their duties which are sufficient for the purposes of reporting in the PETNet and LivestockNet portals of the Animal Feed Network. Therefore, FDA believes that the proposed collection of information does not have additional recordkeeping requirements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 27, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On October 25, 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) (Pub. L. 103–417) was signed into law. DSHEA, among other things, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by adding section 402(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(g)). Section 402(g)(2) of the FD&C Act provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Section 402(g) of the FD&C Act also stipulates that such regulations will be modeled after CGMP regulations for food and may not impose standards for which there are no current, and generally available, analytical methodologies. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if “it has been prepared, packed, or held under conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice regulations.” Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371), FDA may issue regulations necessary for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. In the
Records are an indispensable component of CGMP. The records required by FDA's regulations in part 111 provide the foundation for the planning, control, and improvement processes that constitute a quality control system. Implementation of these processes in a manufacturing operation serves as the backbone to CGMP. The records show what is to be manufactured; what was, in fact, manufactured; and whether the controls that the manufacturer put in place to ensure the identity, purity, strength, and composition and limits on contaminants and to prevent adulteration were effective. Further, records will show whether and what deviations from control processes occurred, facilitate evaluation and corrective action concerning these deviations (including, where necessary, whether associated batches of product should be recalled from the marketplace), and enable a manufacturer to assure that the corrective action was effective. In addition, by establishing recordkeeping requirements, FDA can ensure that industry follows CGMP during manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations. The regulations in part 111 establish the minimum manufacturing practices necessary to ensure that dietary supplements are manufactured, packaged, labeled, or held in a manner that will ensure the quality of the dietary supplements during manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations.
The recordkeeping requirements of the regulations include establishing written procedures and maintaining records pertaining to: (1) Personnel; (2) sanitation; (3) calibration of instruments and controls; (4) calibration, inspection, or checks of automated, mechanical, or electronic equipment; (5) maintaining, cleaning, and sanitizing equipment and utensils and other contact surfaces; (6) water used that may become a component of the dietary supplement; (7) production and process controls; (8) quality control; (9) components, packaging, labels, and product received for packaging and labeling; (10) master manufacturing and batch production; (11) laboratory operations; (12) manufacturing operations; (13) packaging and labeling operations; (14) holding and distributing operations; (15) returned dietary supplements; and (16) product complaints.
The recordkeeping requirements of the regulations in part 111 are set forth in each subpart. In table 1 we list the annual burdens associated with recordkeeping, as described in the June 25, 2007, final rule. For some provisions listed in table 1, we did not estimate the number of records per recordkeeper because recordkeeping occasions consist of frequent brief entries of dates, temperatures, monitoring results, or documentation that specific actions were taken. Information might be recorded a few times a day, week, or month. When the records burden involves frequent brief entries, we entered 1 as the default for the number of records per recordkeeper. For example, many of the records listed under § 111.35 in table 1, such as § 111.35(b)(2) (documentation, in individual equipment logs, of the date of the use, maintenance, cleaning, and sanitizing of equipment), involve many short sporadic entries over the course of the year, varying across equipment and plants in the industry. We did not attempt to estimate the actual number of recordkeeping occasions for these provisions, but instead entered an estimate of the average number of hours per year. We entered the default value of 1 as the number of records per recordkeeper for these and similar provisions. For § 111.35, the entry for number of records is 1 as a default representing a large number of brief recordkeeping occasions.
In many rows of table 1, we list a burden under a single provision that covers the written procedures or records described in several provisions. For example, the burden of the batch production records listed in table 1 under § 111.260 includes the burden for records listed under § 111.255 because the batch production records must include those records.
The number of records for batch production records (and other records kept on a batch basis in table 1) equals the annual number of batches. The estimated burden for records kept by batch includes both records kept for every batch and records kept for some, but not all, batches. We use the annual number of batches as the number of records that will not necessarily be kept for every batch, such as test results or material review and disposition records, because such records are part of records, if they are necessary, that will be kept for every batch.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The average burden per recordkeeping estimates in table 1 are based on those in the June 25, 2007, final rule, which were based on our institutional experience with other CGMP requirements and on data provided by Research Triangle Institute in the “Survey of Manufacturing Practices in the Dietary Supplement Industry” cited in that rule.
The estimates in table 1 of the number of firms affected by each provision of part 111 are based on the percentage of manufacturers, packagers, labelers, holders, distributors, and warehousers that reported in the survey that they have not established written standard operating procedures or do not maintain records that were later required by the June 25, 2007, final rule. Because we do not have survey results for general warehouses, we entered the approximate number of facilities in that category for those provisions covering general facilities. For the dietary supplement industry, the survey estimated that 1,460 firms would be covered by the final rule, including manufacturers, packagers, labelers, holders, distributors, and warehousers. The time estimates include the burden involved in documenting that certain requirements are performed and in recordkeeping. We used an estimated annual batch production of 1,408 batches per year to estimate the burden of requirements that are related to the number of batches produced annually, such as § 111.260, “What must the batch production record include?” The estimate of 1,408 batches per year is near the midpoint of the number of annual batches reported by survey firms.
The length of time that CGMP records must be maintained is set forth in § 111.605. Table 1 reflects the estimated burdens for written procedures, record maintenance, periodically reviewing records to determine if they may be discarded, and for any associated documentation for that activity for records that are required under part 111. We have not included a separate estimate of burden for those sections that require maintaining records in accordance with § 111.605, but have included those burdens under specific provisions for keeping records. For example, § 111.255(a) requires that the batch production records be prepared every time a batch is manufactured, and § 111.255(d) requires that batch production records be kept in accordance with § 111.605. The estimated burdens for both § 111.255(a) and (d) are included under § 111.260 (what the batch record must include).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 28, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “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 provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Enacted on November 18, 2003, the Animal Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 108–130) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and requires FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications, products, establishments, and sponsors. It also requires the Agency to grant a waiver from, or a reduction of those fees in certain circumstances. Thus, to implement this statutory provision of ADUFA, FDA developed a guidance entitled, “Guidance for Industry: Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.” This document provides guidance on the types of fees FDA is authorized to collect under ADUFA, and how to request waivers and reductions from FDA's animal drug user fees. Further, this guidance also describes the types of fees and fee waivers and reductions; what information FDA recommends be submitted in support of a request for a fee waiver or reduction; how to submit such a request; and FDA's process for reviewing requests.
Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug sponsors. Requests or waivers or reductions may be submitted by a person paying any of the animal drug user fees assessed including application fees, product fees, establishment fees, or sponsor fees.
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
Based on FDA's database system, from fiscal year (FY) 2010 to 2012 there were an estimated 173 sponsors subject to ADUFA. However, not all sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of waiver requests is based on the average number of submission types received by FDA in FY 2010–2012.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Enforcement Policy for Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That FDA Finds Not Substantially Equivalent.” This draft guidance provides information to tobacco retailers on FDA's enforcement policy regarding certain so-called provisional tobacco products that become subject to not substantially equivalent (NSE) orders issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 28, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850–3229. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance may be sent. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 1–877–287–1373, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for tobacco retailers entitled “Enforcement Policy for Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That FDA Finds Not Substantially Equivalent.” In this draft guidance, FDA provides information on its enforcement policy regarding so-called provisional tobacco products that become subject to NSE orders under the FD&C Act. The provisional products addressed by this draft guidance are tobacco products that were first introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution after February 15, 2007, and prior to March 22, 2011, and for which a section 905(j) (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)) (or substantial equivalent) report was submitted no later than March 22, 2011. Because the FD&C Act permitted this specific group of products to remain on the market pending FDA's review of the report, there will very likely be products at retail locations within the United States when FDA issues an order finding a tobacco product NSE. This draft guidance explains that FDA does not intend to take enforcement action for at least 30 calendar days from the date the NSE order issues for those products that are in the retailer's current inventory at a specific retail location on the date FDA issues the NSE order.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on “Enforcement Policy for Certain (Provisional) Tobacco Products That FDA Finds Not Substantially Equivalent.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimated budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 includes $19,090,023 for the IHS Loan Repayment Program (LRP) for health professional educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) in return for full-time clinical service as defined in the IHS LRP policy clarifications at
This program announcement is subject to the appropriation of funds. This notice is being published early to coincide with the recruitment activity of the IHS, which competes with other Government and private health management organizations to employ qualified health professionals.
This program is authorized by 25 U.S.C. 1616a.
The estimated amount available is approximately $19,090,023 to support approximately 440 competing awards averaging $43,358 per award for a two year contract. One year contract extensions will receive priority
Pursuant to Section 108(b), to be eligible to participate in the LRP, an individual must:
(1)(A) Be enrolled—
(i) In a course of study or program in an accredited institution, as determined by the Secretary, within any State and be scheduled to complete such course of study in the same year such individual applies to participate in such program; or
(ii) In an approved graduate training program in a health profession; or
(B) Have a degree in a health profession and a license to practice in a state; and
(2)(A) Be eligible for, or hold an appointment as a Commissioned Officer in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS); or
(B) Be eligible for selection for service in the Regular Corps of the PHS; or
(C) Meet the professional standards for civil service employment in the IHS; or
(D) Be employed in an Indian health program without service obligation; and
(E) Submit to the Secretary an application for a contract to the LRP. The Secretary must approve the contract before the disbursement of loan repayments can be made to the participant. Participants will be required to fulfill their contract service agreements through full-time clinical practice at an Indian health program site determined by the Secretary. Loan repayment sites are characterized by physical, cultural, and professional isolation, and have histories of frequent staff turnover. Indian health program sites are annually prioritized within the Agency by discipline, based on need or vacancy. The IHS LRP's ranking system gives high site scores to those sites that are most in need of specific health professions. Awards are given to the applications that match the highest priorities until funds are no longer available.
Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government, a State, or other entity is not eligible for the LRP unless the obligation will be completely satisfied before they begin service under this program.
Section 108 of the IHCIA, as amended, authorizes the IHS LRP and provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall establish a program to be known as the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program (hereinafter referred to as the Loan Repayment Program) in order to assure an adequate supply of trained health professionals necessary to maintain accreditation of, and provide health care services to Indians through, Indian health programs.
Section 1603(10) of the IHCIA provides that:
“Health Profession” means allopathic medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, geriatric medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, podiatric medicine, nursing, public health nursing, dentistry, psychiatry, osteopathy, optometry, pharmacy, psychology, public health, social work, marriage and family therapy, chiropractic medicine, environmental health and engineering, an allied health profession, or any other health profession.
For the purposes of this program, the term “Indian health program” is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A), as follows:
(A) The term Indian health program means any health program or facility funded, in whole or in part, by the Service for the benefit of Indians and administered—
(i) Directly by the Service;
(ii) By any Indian Tribe or Tribal or Indian organization pursuant to a contract under—
(I) The Indian Self-Determination Act, or
(II) Section 23 of the Act of April 30, 1908, (25 U.S.C. 47), popularly known as the Buy Indian Act; or
(iii) By an urban Indian organization pursuant to Title V of this Act.
Section 108 of the IHCIA, as amended, authorizes the IHS to determine specific health professions for which IHS LRP contracts will be awarded. Annually, the Director, Division of Health Professions Support, sends a letter to the Director, Office of Public Health, Tribal leaders, and urban Indian health programs directors to request a list of positions for which there is a need or vacancy. The list of priority health professions that follows is based upon the needs of the IHS as well as upon the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(a) Medicine: Allopathic and Osteopathic.
(b) Nurse: Associate, B.S., and M.S. Degree.
(c) Clinical Psychology: Ph.D. and Psy.D.
(d) Counseling Psychology: Ph.D.
(e) Social Work: Licensed Clinical Social Worker; Masters level only.
(f) Chemical Dependency Counseling: Baccalaureate and Masters level.
(g) Counseling: Masters level only.
(h) Dentistry: DDS and DMD.
(i) Dental Hygiene.
(j) Dental Assistant: Certified.
(k) Pharmacy: B.S., Pharm.D.
(l) Optometry: O.D.
(m) Physician Assistant: Certified.
(n) Advanced Practice Nurses: Nurse Practitioner, Certified Nurse Midwife, Doctor of Nursing, Registered Nurse Anesthetist (Priority consideration will be given to Registered Nurse Anesthetists.).
(o) Podiatry: D.P.M.
(p) Physical Rehabilitation Services: Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, and Audiology: M.S. and D.P.T.
(q) Diagnostic Radiology Technology: Certificate, Associate, and B.S.
(r) Medical Laboratory Scientist, Medical Technology, Medical Laboratory Technician: Associate, and B.S.
(s) Public Health Nutritionist/Registered Dietitian.
(t) Engineering (Environmental): B.S. (Engineers must provide environmental engineering services to be eligible.).
(u) Environmental Health (Sanitarian): B.S. and M.S.
(v) Health Records: R.H.I.T. and R.H.I.A.
(w) Certified Professional Coder: AAPC or AHIMA.
(x) Respiratory Therapy.
(y) Ultrasonography.
(z) Chiropractors: Licensed.
(aa) Naturopathic Medicine: Licensed.
(bb) Acupuncturists: Licensed.
Not applicable.
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied health professions is effective for applicants for FY 2014. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded.
Each applicant will be responsible for submitting a complete application. Go to
• Employment Verification—Documentation of your employment with an Indian health program as applicable:
○ Commissioned Corps orders, Tribal employment documentation or offer letter, or notification of Personnel Action (SF–50)—For current Federal employees.
• License to Practice—A photocopy of your current, non-temporary, full and unrestricted license to practice (issued by any state, Washington, DC or Puerto Rico).
• Loan Documentation—A copy of all current statements related to the loans submitted as part of the LRP application.
• If applicable, if you are a member of a Federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide a certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Certification: Form 4432 Category A—Members of Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes, Bands or Communities).
Applications for the FY 2014 LRP will be accepted and evaluated monthly beginning February 14, 2014, and will continue to be accepted each month thereafter until all funds are exhausted for FY 2014. Subsequent monthly deadline dates are scheduled for Friday of the second full week of each month until August 15, 2014.
Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(1) Received on or before the deadline date; and
(2) All documentation as described above are submitted on or before the deadline date. (Applicants should request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing).
Applications submitted after the monthly closing date will be held for consideration in the next monthly funding cycle. Applicants who do not receive funding by September 30, 2014, will be notified in writing.
Application documents should be sent to: IHS Loan Repayment Program, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
This program is not subject to review under Executive Order 12372.
Not applicable.
New applicants are responsible for using the online application. Applicants requesting a contract extension must do so in writing as early in the fiscal year in which they are reapplying.
The IHS has identified the positions in each Indian health program for which there is a need or vacancy and ranked those positions in order of priority by developing discipline-specific prioritized lists of sites. Ranking criteria for these sites may include the following:
(1) Historically critical shortages caused by frequent staff turnover;
(2) Current unmatched vacancies in a health profession discipline;
(3) Projected vacancies in a health profession discipline;
(4) Ensuring that the staffing needs of Indian health programs administered by an Indian Tribe or Tribal health organization or urban Indian organization receive consideration on an equal basis with programs that are administered directly by the Service; and
(5) Giving priority to vacancies in Indian health programs that have a need for health professionals to provide health care services as a result of individuals having breached LRP contracts entered into under this section.
Consistent with this priority ranking, in determining applications to be approved and contracts to accept, the IHS will give priority to applications made by American Indians and Alaska Natives and to individuals recruited through the efforts of Indian Tribes or Tribal or Indian organizations.
Loan repayment awards will be made only to those individuals serving at facilities which have a site score of 70 or above during the first quarter of FY 2014, if funding is available.
One or all of the following factors may be applicable to an applicant, and the applicant who has the most of these factors, all other criteria being equal, will be selected.
(1) An applicant's length of current employment in the IHS, Tribal, or urban program.
(2) Availability for service earlier than other applicants (first come, first served).
(3) Date the individual's application was received.
Not applicable.
Notice of awards will be mailed on the last working day of each month. Once the applicant is approved for participation in the LRP, the applicant will receive confirmation of his/her loan repayment award and the duty site at which he/she will serve his/her loan repayment obligation.
Applicants may sign contractual agreements with the Secretary for two years. The IHS may repay all, or a portion of the applicant's health profession educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) for tuition expenses and reasonable educational and living expenses in amounts up to $20,000 per year for each year of contracted service. Payments will be made annually to the participant for the purpose of repaying his/her outstanding health profession educational loans. Payment of health profession education loans will be made to the participant within 120 days, from the date the contract becomes effective. The effective date of the contract is calculated from the date it is signed by the Secretary or his/her delegate, or the IHS, Tribal, urban, or Buy Indian health center entry-on-duty date, whichever is more recent.
In addition to the loan payment, participants are provided tax assistance payments in an amount not less than 20 percent and not more than 39 percent of the participant's total amount of loan repayments made for the taxable year involved. The loan repayments and the tax assistance payments are taxable income and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The tax assistance payment will be paid to the IRS directly on the participant's behalf. LRP award recipients should be aware that the IRS may place them in a higher tax bracket than they would otherwise have been prior to their award.
Any individual who enters this program and satisfactorily completes his or her obligated period of service may apply to extend his/her contract on a year-by-year basis, as determined by the IHS. Participants extending their contracts may receive up to the maximum amount of $20,000 per year plus an additional 20 percent for Federal withholding.
Please address inquiries to Ms. Jacqueline K. Santiago, Chief, IHS Loan Repayment Program, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone: 301/443–3396 [between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (EST)
IHS Area Offices and Service Units that are financially able are authorized to provide additional funding to make awards to applicants in the LRP, but not to exceed $35,000 a year plus tax assistance. All additional funding must be made in accordance with the priority system outlined below. Health professions given priority for selection above the $20,000 threshold are those identified as meeting the criteria in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(g)(2)(A) which provides that the Secretary shall consider the extent to which each such determination:
(i) Affects the ability of the Secretary to maximize the number of contracts that can be provided under the LRP from the amounts appropriated for such contracts;
(ii) Provides an incentive to serve in Indian health programs with the greatest shortages of health professionals; and
(iii) Provides an incentive with respect to the health professional involved remaining in an Indian health program with such a health professional shortage, and continuing to provide primary health services, after the completion of the period of obligated service under the LRP.
Contracts may be awarded to those who are available for service no later than September 30, 2014, and must be in compliance with any limits in the appropriation and Section 108 of the IHCIA not to exceed the amount authorized in the IHS appropriation (up to $32,000,000 for FY 2014). In order to ensure compliance with the statutes, Area Offices or Service Units providing additional funding under this section are responsible for notifying the LRP of such payments before funding is offered to the LRP participant.
Should an IHS Area Office contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Area. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, the Albuquerque Area Office identifies supplemental monies for dentists. Only the dental positions within the Albuquerque Area will be funded with the supplemental monies consistent with the national ranking and site index within that Area.
Should an IHS Service Unit contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Service Unit. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, Whiteriver Service Unit identifies supplemental monies for nurses. The Whiteriver Service Unit consists of two facilities, namely the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital and the Cibecue Indian Health Center. The national ranking will be used for the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital (Score = 79) and the Cibecue Indian Health Center (Score = 95). With a score of 95, the Cibecue Indian Health Center would receive priority over the Whiteriver PHS Indian Hospital.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301–496–7057; fax: 301–402–0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Small molecule anti-inflammatory agents currently employed to treat inflammation frequently cause adverse side effects, such as gastrointestinal discomfort and decreased blood clotting efficiency. Use of steroid-based anti-inflammatory drugs may result in reduced adrenal gland function and generalized immune system inhibition. This technology specifically targets and alleviates substance P-induced hyper-inflammatory diseases, potentially avoiding the complications associated with other anti-inflammatory compounds. Blocking the activity of endogenous substance P potentially can be employed to prevent or treat a wide variety of diseases or syndromes caused in whole or part by an inflammatory response mediated by substance P. These include, but are not limited to, virus-mediated bronchiolitis including that mediated by respiratory syncytial virus, bacterial colitis, inflammation associated with chlamydial diseases, lung injury associated with staphylococcal enterotoxin B, inflammation due to cytomegalovirus or hepatitis B virus, sepsis, allergic diseases such as asthma, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, inflammation associated with multiple sclerosis, and rejection of allografts and other transplanted tissues or organs.
• Treatment of pathogen induced inflammation, especially bronchiolitis
• Prevention or lessening of adverse effects associated with other anti-inflammatory agents
• Amelioration of pain
• Useful for management of numerous inflammatory-related viral and/or bacterial infections
• May reduce or circumvent adverse side effects associated with other small-molecule and/or steroid-based anti-inflammatory treatments
• In vitro data available
• In vivo data available (animal)
• PCT Application No. PCT/US2000/001032 filed 14 Jan 2000
• US Patent No. 7,101,547 issued 05 Sep 2006
• Various international patent applications pending or issued
• Design of HIV vaccines
• Production of HIV vaccines
• Induction of Neutralizing Antibodies
• HIV vaccine booster protein
• Consistent sulfation/production of gp120
• Gp120 vaccine component with improved stability and immunogenicity
• Recombinant gp120 vaccine component in native conformation
• Early-stage
• In vitro data available
• In vivo data available (animal)
• Prototype
• Novel target for treatment of HCV infection.
• Diagnostics can be developed for detection of IFNL4 mRNA or protein.
• Existing biological reagents for detection of IFNL4—expression assays, antibodies and protein.
• Early-stage
• Pre-clinical
• In vitro data available
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/616,664 filed 28 Mar 2012
• International PCT Application No. PCT/US13/31624 filed 14 Mar 2013, which published as WO 2013/148272 on 03 Oct 2013
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/543,620 filed 05 Oct 2011
• International PCT Application No. PCT/US2012/59048 filed 05 Oct 2012, which published as WO 2013/052862 on 11 Apr 2013
Available for licensing are mouse models with a total deletion of the FXR gene (FXR-null mouse), as well as mice with tissue-specific deletions of the FXR gene in the liver or in the intestine. These mice may be useful for the study of cholesterol and bile acid synthesis and their role in metabolic disease, as well as for the development of drugs targeting FXR.
• Development of FXR/BAR-based drugs for the treatment of cholesterol
• Study of the role of FXR in cholesterol biosynthesis and metabolic disease.
• HHS Reference No. E–323–2001/0—a mouse line lacking the nuclear receptor FXR/BAR
• HHS Reference No. E–323–2001/1—a mouse line lacking FXR/BAR expression in the liver
• HHS Reference No. E–323–2001/2—a mouse line lacking FXR/BAR expression in the intestine
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, January 9, 2014, 09:00 a.m. to January 9, 2014, 01:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
The meeting date has been changed to March 7, 2014. The time and meeting location 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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 a meeting of the NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended because the premature disclosure of to discuss personnel matters and the discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of recommendations.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
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 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 17, 2014, 09:00 a.m. to February 17, 2014, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on March 17, 2014, starting at 11:00 a.m. and ending at 05:00 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 the following meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposal and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposal, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c) (6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications or contract proposals, 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.
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.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 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.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before March 27, 2014.
Brenda Tapia, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203; fax (703) 358–2280; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for golden parakeet (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for African dwarf crocodile (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to import two captive-born Amur tigers (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include the families Equidae and Bovidae and species: Red ruffed lemur (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include blue-throated macaw (
The applicant requests amendment of their captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to include Arabian oryx (
The applicant requests amendment and renewal of their permit authorizing interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild White-breasted thrashers (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Farmington Field Office, Farmington, New Mexico, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment with an associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address issues relating to oil and gas in the Mancos Shale/Gallup Formation. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
Comments may be submitted in writing until April 28, 2014. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM web site at
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the oil and gas RMP Amendment/EIS for the Mancos Shale/Gallup Formation by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Farmington Field Office 6251 N. College Blvd. Suite A, Farmington, NM 87402.
Lindsey Eoff, Project Manager, Telephone: 505–564–7670; address: 6251 N. College Blvd. Suite A, Farmington, New Mexico 87402; email:
The RMP amendment is being developed in order to analyze the impacts of additional development in what was previously considered a fully developed oil and gas play within the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico. The Mancos Shale/Gallup Formation was analyzed in the 2002 Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario and current Farmington Field Office 2003 RMP/EIS. Subsequent improvements and innovations in horizontal drilling technology and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing have enhanced the economics of developing this stratigraphic horizon. With favorable oil prices, the oil play in the southern part of the Farmington Field Office boundary has drawn considerable interest and several wells are planned and being drilled. As full-field development occurs, especially in the shale oil play, additional impacts may occur that previously were not anticipated in the RFD or analyzed in the current 2003 RMP/EIS, which will require an EIS-level plan amendment and revision of the RFD for complete analysis of the Mancos Shale/Gallup Formation. The planning area is located in northwestern New Mexico, encompassing about 4 million acres,
• The Field Office will prepare the RMP Amendment in compliance with FLPMA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, and all other applicable laws, Executive Orders, and the BLM management policies.
• The Field Office will use the EIS as the analytical basis for any decision it makes to amend the RMP.
• The Field Office is developing an RFD to predict future levels of development.
• Lands covered in the RMP Amendment/EIS will be public land and split estates managed by the BLM.
• No decisions will be made relative to non-BLM administered lands.
• The Field Office will recognize valid existing rights under the RMPs, as amended.
• The Field Office will coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies, and with tribal governments in the EIS and plan amendment process to strive for consistency with existing plans and policies, to the extent practicable.
• The Field Office will coordinate with tribal governments and provide strategies for the protection of recognized traditional uses in the EIS and plan amendment process.
• The Field Office will take into account appropriate protection and management of cultural and historic resources in the EIS and plan amendment process and will engage in all required consultation.
• The Field Office will recognize in the EIS and plan amendment the special importance of public lands to people who live in communities surrounded by public lands and the importance of public lands to the nation as a whole.
• The Field Office will make every effort to encourage public participation throughout the EIS process.
• The Field Office has the authority to develop protective management prescriptions for lands with wilderness characteristics within RMPs. As part of the public involvement process for land use planning, the BLM will consider public input regarding lands to be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.
• Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary objectives of sound land management practices and are not to be considered mutually exclusive priorities.
• Broad-based public participation will be an integral part of the planning and EIS process. Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies as long as the decisions are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands.
• The RMP Amendment/EIS will recognize the State's responsibility and authority to manage wildlife. The BLM will consult with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
• The RMP Amendment/EIS will incorporate management decisions brought forward from existing planning documents.
The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The minutes and list of attendees for each scoping meeting will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft EIS as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
Parties interested in leasing and developing Federal coal in the planning area should provide coal resource data for their area(s) of interest. Specifically, information is requested on the location, quality, and quantity of Federal coal with development potential, and on surface resource values related to the 20 coal unsuitability criteria described in 43 CFR part 3461. This information will be used for any necessary updating of coal screening determinations in the planning area. The coal screening process is described in 43 CFR 3420.1–4. Proprietary data marked as confidential may be submitted in response to this call for coal information. Please submit all proprietary information submissions to the address listed above. The BLM will treat submissions marked as “Confidential” in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, migratory birds, vegetation, special status species, air quality, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
March 27, 2014. The RAC meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and end no later than 3:30 p.m. The public comment period will be held from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Coeur d'Alene BLM District Office located at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815.
Suzanne Endsley, RAC Coordinator, BLM Coeur d'Alene District, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815 or telephone at (208) 769–5004.
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The agenda will include the following main topics: The Clearwater National Forest will present a proposal to increase recreation fees at specific sites on the Forest (Recreation RAC Subcommittee will convene); updates from the Cottonwood and Coeur d'Alene Field Offices; presentations on hazardous fuels reduction and forestry projects. Additional agenda topics or changes to the agenda will be announced in local press releases. More information is available at
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC in advance of the meeting or during the scheduled public forum the day of the meeting. Each formal RAC meeting has allocated time for receiving public comments. Depending upon the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Temporary Closure.
Notice is hereby given that the Pony and Elk fires temporary closures to motorized vehicles and winter uses are in effect on public lands administered by the Four Rivers Field Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The temporary motorized vehicle closure will be in effect on February 25, 2014 and will remain in effect for up to 3 years, or until rescinded or modified by the authorized officer, whichever comes first. The all-entry closure will be in effect January 1 through April 30, 2014, and January 1 through April 30, 2015. Depending on the rate of recovery of the area and condition of the wintering elk and mule deer populations, the all-entry closure may be unnecessary in 2015.
Terry Humphrey, Four Rivers Field Manager, at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, ID 83705, via email at
The temporary closures affect BLM-administered lands burned August 8–31, 2013, by the Pony and Elk fires, located approximately 10 miles north of Mountain Home, Idaho. The parcels of public lands affected by these closures, depicted on the Pony and Elk Fires Temporary Closure Area Map, dated
The temporary closure area described herein encompasses approximately 54,200 acres in Elmore County, Idaho. The closures are intended to protect critical winter habitat for elk and mule deer as well as important year-long sage-grouse habitat. The motorized vehicle closure will help to slow the spread of noxious weeds; allow planted shrub, forb, and grass species to become established; and allow existing plants to recover. The all-entry closure will reduce human disturbance to wintering elk and mule deer. The closures will help ensure the long-term viability of habitat for wildlife populations in the area. The BLM will post closure signs at gates, main access points, key perimeter locations and main entry points to the closed areas. The closure notice will also be posted in the Boise District BLM office. Maps of the affected area and other documents associated with this closure are available at the Boise District BLM Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705 and on the BLM Idaho Web site
Throughout the temporary closure period, motorized vehicles must not be used within the closed area.
Motorized vehicles are allowed within the closed area on Idaho State Highway 20, the Long Tom Reservoir Road, and roads maintained by the Mountain Home and Glenns Ferry Highway Districts.
Between January 1, 2014, and April 30, 2014, and January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2015, no unauthorized persons will be allowed in the closed area except on the aforementioned roads.
43 CFR 8360.0–7; 43 CFR 8364.1
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Secretary of the Interior is requesting four nominations for representatives to serve on the Medford District Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). The Committee will advise the Secretary, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on the selection and prioritization of projects funded under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The BLM will accept public nominations for 45 days after the publication of this notice.
Submit nomination packages to the address listed below, on or before March 27, 2014.
Advisory Committee nomination forms are available at the BLM Medford District Office and also on
Stephen Baker, BLM Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208, 503–808–6306;
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act was extended to provide stability for local counties by compensating them, in part, for the decrease in funds formerly derived from the harvest of timber on Federal lands. Pursuant to the Act, five Committees serve western Oregon BLM districts that contain Oregon and California grant lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. Committees consist of 15 local citizens representing a wide array of interests.
The RACs provide a mechanism for local community collaboration with Federal land managers as they select projects to be conducted on Federal lands or that will benefit resources on Federal lands using funds under Title II of the Act.
Committee membership must be balanced in terms of the categories of interest represented. Prospective members are advised that membership on a RAC calls for a substantial commitment of time and energy.
Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Committee. Individuals may also nominate themselves or others. Nominees must reside within one of the counties that are (in whole or in part) within the BLM District boundaries of the Committee on which membership is sought. Nominees will be evaluated based on their education, training, and experience relating to land use issues and knowledge of the geographical area of the Committee. Nominees must also demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. The Obama Administration prohibits individuals who are currently federally registered lobbyists from serving on all Federal Advisory Committee Act
The BLM is collecting nominations for persons who:
• Represent archaeological and historical interests;
• Represent nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro interest groups, wildlife or hunting organizations, or watershed associations;
• Represent American Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area for which the committee is organized;
• Hold State elected office (or a designee).
The Medford District RAC advises Federal officials on projects associated with Federal lands within the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area in the Lakeview District which includes lands in Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties and small portions of west Klamath County.
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.
43 CFR 1784.4–1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is segregating public land located in the State of Arizona from appropriation under the public land laws including the mining law, but excluding the mineral leasing or materials acts, for a period of 2 years. This is for the purpose of processing a solar energy right-of-way application. The public land contained in this segregation totals 1,849.92 acres.
This segregation is effective on February 25, 2014.
Eddie Arreola, Supervisory Project Manager; Telephone: 602–417–9505; Address: One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004–4427, or email:
The BLM is segregating the following described public land located in the State of Arizona, subject to valid existing rights, from appropriation under the public land laws and mining laws, but not the mineral leasing or the materials acts.
The area described contains approximately 1,849.92 acres.
In order to process the right-of-way application filed on the above described land and to maintain the status quo, the BLM is segregating the land under the authority contained in 43 CFR 2091.3–1(e), 43 CFR 2804.25(e), and a
The segregation period will terminate and the land will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, if one of the following events occurs: (1) Upon the issuance of a decision by the authorized officer granting, granting with modifications, or denying the application for a right-of-way; (2) Upon publication of a
43 CFR 2091.3–1(e), 43 CFR 2804.25(e).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2014. We 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before March 27, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about
The Division of Permits Management of the National Mall and Memorial Parks issues permits for public gatherings (special events and demonstrations) held on NPS property within the National Capital Region. Regulations at 36 CFR 7.96(g) govern permits for public gatherings and implement statutory mandates to provide for resource protection and public enjoyment. These regulations reflect the special demands on many of the urban National Capital Region parks as sites for demonstrations and special events. A special event is any presentation, program, or display that is recreational, entertaining, or celebratory in nature; e.g., sports events, pageants, celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments, exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events. The term “demonstration” includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances.
Those who want to hold a special event or demonstration must complete an Application for a Permit to Conduct a Demonstration or Special Event in Park Areas and a Waiver of Numerical Limitations on Demonstrations for White House Sidewalk and/or Lafayette Park. The current application is available online at
• Sponsor (name, address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, Web site address).
• Type of permit requested.
• Logistics (dates/times, location, purpose, plans, and equipment for proposed activity).
• Potential civil disobedience and traffic control issues.
• Circumstances that may warrant park rangers being assigned to the event.
Depending on the size and complexity of the activity we may require that applicants submit supporting documents, including, but not limited to: site plan, sign plan, risk management plan, evidence of liability insurance, portable toilet contract, W–9 form, and electronic funds transfer form.
On July 23, 2013, we published in the
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• 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 on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
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 EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
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 behalf of Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., Ivoclar Vivadent Manufacturing, Inc. on February 19, 2014. 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 lithium silicate materials and products containing same. The complaint name as respondents Dentsply International Inc. of York, PA; Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC a/k/a Dentsply Ceramco of York, PA; and DeguDent GmbH of Germany. 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 public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
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. 3001”) 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found no violation of Section 337 in the above-referenced investigation. The investigation is terminated.
Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
The Commission instituted this investigation on August 24, 2012, based on a complaint filed by Technology Properties Limited LLC and Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, both of Cupertino, California; and Patriot Scientific Corporation of Carlsbad, California (collectively “Complainants”). 77 FR 51572–573 (August 24, 2012). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the '336 patent”). The Commission's notice of investigation named the following as respondents: Acer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan and Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California (collectively “Acer”); Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Washington (“Amazon”); Barnes and Noble, Inc. of New York, New York (“B&N”); Garmin Ltd of Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Garmin International, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, and Garmin USA, Inc. of Olathe, Kansas (collectively “Garmin”); HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan and HTC America of Bellevue, Washington (collectively “HTC”); Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd. of Shenzhen, China (“Huawei Tech.”); Huawei North America of Plano, Texas (“Huawei NA”); Kyocera Corporation of Kyoto, Japan and Kyocera Communications, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively “Kyocera”); LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (collectively “LG”); Nintendo Co. Ltd. of Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo of America, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (collectively “Nintendo”); Novatel Wireless, Inc. of San Diego, California (“Novatel”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Seoul, Republic of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively “Samsung”); Sierra Wireless, Inc. of British Columbia, Canada and Sierra Wireless America, Inc. of Carlsbad, California (collectively “Sierra”); and ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively “ZTE”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was named as a participating party.
The Commission later amended the Notice of Investigation to remove Huawei NA as a respondent and to add Huawei Device Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Huawei Device USA Inc. of Plano, Texas; and Futurewei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas (“new Huawei respondents”) as respondents. 78 FR 12354 (Feb. 22, 2013). The Commission later terminated respondents Sierra and Kyocera from the investigation. Notice (Feb. 4, 2013); Notice (Sept. 20, 2013). The Commission also terminated respondents Acer and Amazon from the investigation. 78 FR 71643, 71644 (Nov. 29, 2013).
The active respondents in the investigation include: B&N, Garmin, HTC, Huawei Tech., the new Huawei respondents, LG, Nintendo, Novatel, Samsung, and ZTE. Nintendo was accused of infringing only claims 1 and 11, for which the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's findings of no infringement. Id.
On September 6, 2013, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (“ID”), finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to all of the named respondents. Specifically, the ALJ found that the importation requirement of Section 337 is satisfied. The ALJ also found that none of the accused products directly or indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the '336 patent. The ALJ further found that the asserted claims of the '336 patent have not been found to be invalid. The ALJ also found that respondents have not shown that the accused LG product is covered by a license to the '336 patent. The ALJ further found that Complainants have satisfied the domestic industry requirement pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C) for the '336 patent because Complainants' licensing activities have a nexus to the '336 patent and because Complainants' licensing investments with respect to the '336 patent are substantial. The ALJ also found that there are no public interest issues that would preclude issuance of a remedy were the Commission to find a violation of section 337. The ALJ also issued a recommended determination, recommending that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order barring entry of infringing wireless consumer electronics devices and components thereof against the active respondents. The ALJ did not recommend issuance of a cease and desist order against any respondent. The ALJ also did not recommend the imposition of a bond during the period of Presidential review. On September 12, 2013, the ALJ issued a Notice of Clarification supplementing the Final ID. Notice of Clarification Regarding Final Initial Determination (Sept. 12, 2013).
On September 23, 2013, Complainants filed a petition for review of certain aspects of the final ID concerning asserted claims 6 and 13 of the '336 patent. In particular, Complainants requested that the Commission review the ID's construction of the “entire oscillator” terms recited in claims 6 and 13 and the ID's infringement findings based on those limitations. Complainants also requested that the Commission review the ID's infringement findings concerning the limitations “varying,” “independent,” and “asynchronous” recited in claims 6 and 13. Also on September 23, 2013, the respondents who had not settled with Complainants filed a contingent petition for review of certain aspects of the final ID. In particular, the respondents requested review of the ID's finding that Complainants have satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on licensing activities. On October 17, 2013, the respondents filed a response to Complainants' petition for review. Also on October 17, 2013, Complainants filed a response to the respondents' contingent petition for review. Further on October 17, 2013, the IA filed a joint response to the private parties' petitions.
On October 17, 2013, Complainants filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). On October 23, 2013, the respondents also filed a submission pursuant to the rule. No responses from the public were received in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on September 9, 2013. See Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest (Sept. 9, 2013).
On November 25, 2013, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part with respect to the ID's findings concerning claim construction and infringement of claims 6 and 13 of the '336 patent and domestic industry. 78 FR at 71644–45. The Notice of Review included briefing questions regarding the certain issues under review. Id. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the final ID. Id. at 71644. The Commission also extended the target
On December 19, 2013, in reponse to a request from the parties, the Commission granted the parties an extension to file their reply submissions in response to the Commission's request for briefing to January 6, 2014, and further extended the target date for completion of the investigation to February 19, 2014. Notice (Dec. 19, 2013).
On December 23, 2013, the parties filed initial submissions responding to the Commission's request for briefing on review and concerning remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On January 6, 2014, the parties filed reply submissions. Several third parties filed submissions concerning the public interest, including: Sprint Spectrum, L.P.; CTIA—The Wireless Association®; and United States Cellular Corporation.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review and the responses thereto, and the parties' submissions on review, the Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 with respect to the '336 patent.
Specifically, the Commission affirms the ID's claim constructions as to claims 6 and 13 of the '336 patent.
Regarding infringement, the Commission affirms with modification the ALJ's finding that the accused products do not satisfy the “entire oscillator,” “varying,” and “external clock” limitations of claims 6 and 13. Moreover, the Commission affirms the ALJ's finding that Complainants failed to prove indirect infringement because they failed to prove direct infringement.
With respect to the domestic industry requirement, the Commission finds that Complainants have satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based on modified reasoning.
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission will issue an opinion reflecting its decision within seven days of this notice.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden or associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Officer of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 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)
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
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until April 28, 2014. 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) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(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 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
On February 19, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves claims alleged by the United States on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The United States' Complaint asserts claims against Big Sky Linen Supply, Inc. and Billings Laundry Company (collectively, “Defendants”), and seeks recovery of unreimbursed costs incurred by EPA for response actions taken at or in connection with the release or
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Big Sky Linen Supply, Inc., the operator of the Site, and Billings Laundry Company, the owner of the Site, will pay a total of $825,000 to the Billings PCE Site Special Account, in reimbursement of EPA's past response costs incurred through the date of entry of the Consent Decree. This amount was determined based on an analysis of Defendants' ability to pay, and includes payment from two sources: (1) Defendants' assessed ability to pay ($120,000), and (2) proceeds from an insurance settlement involving certain historic insurance policies ($705,000).
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $14.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.50.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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
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)
ATF collects this data for the purpose of identifying waste product(s) generated as a result of explosives operations, the disposal of the products into navigable waters, and if there is any adverse impact on the environment. The information may be disclosed to other Federal, State,and local law enforcement and regulatory personnel to verify information on the form and to aid in the enforcement of environmental laws.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
The purpose of this information collection is to register delivery sellers of cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products with the Attorney General in order to continue to sell and/or advertise these tobacco products. Respondents will register the information on ATF F 5070.1.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
The records show the explosive material inventories of those persons engaged in various activities within the explosive industry and are used by the government as initial figures from which an audit trail can be developed during the course of a compliance inspection or criminal investigation. Licensees and permittees shall keep records on the business premises for five years from the date a transaction occurs or until discontinuance of business or operations by licensees or permittees.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
ATF collects this data for the purpose of witness qualifications, congressional investigations, court decision and disclosure and furnishing information to other Federal agencies.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
The purpose of this information collection is to ensure that only State permits that meet the statutory requirements contained in the Gun Control Act qualify as alternatives to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
The form is submitted and approved by ATF prior to the transfer of a National Firearms Act weapon from one Special Occupational Tax paying Federal firearms licensee to another special taxpaying licensee. The form is required whenever such a transfer is to be made.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
ATF F 5630.7, NFA Special Tax Registration and Return National Firearms Act is completed and returned by businesses that are subject to Special Occupational Taxes under the National Firearms Act for either initial tax payment or business information changes. This form serves as both a return and a business registration. ATF F 5630.5R, NFA Special Tax Renewal Registration and Return and ATF F 5630.5RC, NFA Special Tax Location Registration Listing are preprinted forms sent to taxpayers for Special Occupation Taxes under the National Firearms Act. Taxpayers validate/correct the information and send the forms back with payment for the applicable tax year.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. 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)
The information collected on ATF F 6140.3 will provide ATF with sufficient data to uniquely identify individual instructors, validate instructor topical expertise prior to training, and defend an instructor's qualifications in court regarding topical expertise.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) 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 sixty (60) days until April 28, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR1320.10.
If you have 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 Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 20530; telephone: (703) 305–0470.
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 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 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 request 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 for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 27, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted 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:
• 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.
• 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.
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 1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office for Victims of Crime, Justice.
Notice of meeting.
The National Coordination Committee on the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)-Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Initiative (“National Coordination Committee” or “Committee”) will meet to carry out its mission to provide valuable advice to assist the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to promote culturally relevant, victim-centered responses to sexual violence within AI/AN communities.
The meeting will be held via Webinar on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 from 2:00–4:00 p.m. E.T. The Webinar is open to the public for participation. There will be a designated time for the public to speak, and the public can observe and submit comments in writing to Shannon May, the Designated Federal Official. Webinar space is limited. To register for the webinar, please provide your full contact information to Shannon May (contact information below).
Shannon May, Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the National Coordination Committee, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office for Victim Assistance, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 3329, Washington, DC 20535; Phone: (202) 323–9468 [note: this is not a toll-free number]; Email:
The National Coordination Committee on the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)-Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Initiative (“National Coordination Committee” or “Committee”) was established by the Attorney General to provide valuable advice to OVC to encourage the coordination of federal, tribal, state, and local efforts to assist victims of sexual violence within AI/AN communities, and to promote culturally relevant, victim-centered responses to sexual violence within those communities.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces Southwest Research Institute's (SWRI) application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 12, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
David W. Johnson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone (202) 693–2110, or email at
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition
OSHA processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months, or no more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
SWRI initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37752). SWRI's most recent renewal was on February 28, 2007, for a five-year period ending on February 28, 2012. SWRI submitted a timely request for renewal, dated May 26, 2011 (see Ex. OSHA–2006–0041–0002), and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current address of the SWRI facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, Post Office Drawer 28510, San Antonio, Texas 78238.
OSHA is providing notice that SWRI is applying for renewal of its current recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers SWRI's existing NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated SWRI's application for renewal and preliminarily determined that SWRI can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site review of SWRI's facilities based on its evaluations of SWRI's application and all other available information. This information includes OSHA's most recent audit of SWRI conducted on February 28–29, 2012, in which the auditors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. SWRI addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SWRI meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in SWRI's application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant SWRI's application for renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces MET Laboratories, Inc.'s (MET), application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 12, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
David W. Johnson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone (202) 693–2110, or email at
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition available at
OSHA processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months, or no more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
MET initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on May 16, 1989 (54 FR 21136). MET's most recent renewal was on May 23, 2002, for a five-year period ending on May 23, 2007. MET submitted a timely request for renewal, dated June 06, 2006 (see Ex. OSHA–2006–0028–0004), and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current address of the MET facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
OSHA is providing notice that MET is applying for renewal of its current recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers MET's existing NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated MET's application for renewal and preliminarily determined that MET can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site review of MET's facilities based on its evaluations of MET's application and all other available information. This information includes OSHA's most recent audit of MET conducted on September 26–28, 2012, in which the auditors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. MET addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in MET's application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant MET's application for renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 12, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
David W. Johnson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone (202) 693–2110, or email at
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition available at
OSHA processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months, or no more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
UL initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on June 13, 1988, referenced in a
(1) UL Northbrook, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062;
(2) UL International Netherlands B.V., Delta 1A, Business Park IJsseloord 2, Arnhem, Netherlands 6825 ML;
(3) UL International Italia S.r.l., Via Archimede, 42, Agrate Brianza, Italy 20041;
(4) UL International Services, Ltd. Taiwan, 1st Floor, 260 Da-Yeh Road, Pei Tou District, Taipei City, Taiwan 112;
(5) UL Japan, 4383–326 Asam-cho, Ise-shi, Japan 516–0021;
(6) UL San Jose, 455 Trimble Road, San Jose, California 95131;
(7) UL Melville, 1285 Walt Whitman Road, Mellville, New York 11747;
(8) UL International Germany GmbH, Admiral-Rosendahl-Strasse 9, 23, Neu-Isenburg 63263;
(9) UL Canada, 7 Underwriters Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MiR 3A9;
(10) UL Research Triangle Park, 12 Laboratory Drive, P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709;
(11) UL International Denmark A/S, Borupvang 5A, Ballerup, Denmark DK–2750;
(12) UL International UK Ltd., Wonersh House; The Guildway; Old Portsmouth Road, Guilford, Surrey, United Kingdom, GU3 1LR;
(13) UL International Limited Hong Kong, 18th Floor, Delta House, 3 On Yiu Street, Shatin, Hong Kong;
(14) UL Camas, 2600 NW. Lake Road, Camas, Washington 98607; and
(15) UL Korea, 33rd Floor Gangnam Finance Center, 737 Yeoksam-dong Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea 135–984.
OSHA is providing notice that UL is applying for renewal of its current recognition as an NRTL. This renewal covers UL's existing NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated UL's application for renewal and preliminarily determined that UL can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site review of UL's facilities based on its evaluations of UL's application and all other available information. This information includes OSHA's most recent audits of UL's headquarters, UL Northbrook, conducted on September 10–11, 2013, and on April 4–7, 2011, in which the auditors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. UL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
OSHA staff also performed audits of the UL International Services, Ltd. Taiwan site on November 6–7, 2008; of the UL Melville site on October 20–22, 2008; of the UL International Germany GmbH on June 22–23, 2009; of the UL Research Triangle Park on February 14–15, 2013; of the UL International Denmark A/S, on June 22–23, 2008 and on April 22–23, 2013; of the UL International UK Ltd. On April 18–19, 2011; and of the UL International Limited Hong Kong on November 3–4, 2008. The auditors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. UL addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application for renewal.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in UL's application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
The NRTL Program staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant UL's application for renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice
In this notice, OSHA announces SGS North America, Inc.'s (SGS), application containing a request for renewal of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before March 12, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
David W. Johnson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210, phone (202) 693–2110, or email at
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA maintains an informational Web site for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition available at
OSHA processes applications by an NRTL for renewal of recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7, App. II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a renewal request to OSHA, not less than nine months, or no more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. A renewal request includes a request for renewal and any additional information the NRTL wishes to submit to demonstrate its continued compliance with the terms of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL's headquarters and key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will schedule the necessary on-site assessments prior to the expiration date of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and, as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA announces its preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
SGS initially received OSHA recognition as an NRTL on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15509). SGS's most recent renewal was on August 28, 1998, for a five-year period ending on August 28, 2003. SGS submitted a timely request for renewal, dated October 16, 2002 (see Ex. OSHA–2006–0040–0007), and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current address of the SGS facility recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is SGS North America, Inc., 620 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024.
OSHA is providing notice that SGS is applying for renewal of its current recognition as a NRTL. This renewal covers SGS's existing NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA evaluated SGS's application for renewal and preliminarily determined that SGS can continue to meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition. Accordingly, OSHA is making a determination that it does not need to conduct an on-site review of SGS's facilities based on its evaluations of SGS's application and all other available information. This information includes OSHA's most recent audit of SGS conducted on November 14–16, 2012, in which the auditors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. SGS addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of their recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. OSHA must receive the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in SGS's application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits), as well as all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant SGS's application for renewal. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Request for comments and notice of public roundtable.
The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a study at the request of Congress to assess the state of U.S. law recognizing and protecting “making available” and “communication to the public” rights for copyright holders. The Office is requesting public comments on how the existing bundle of rights under Title 17 covers the making available and communication to the public rights, how foreign laws have addressed such rights, and the feasibility and necessity of amending U.S. law to strengthen or clarify our law in this area. The Copyright Office also will hold a public roundtable to discuss these topics and to provide a forum for interested parties to address the issues raised by the comments received.
Comments are due on or before April 4, 2014. The public roundtable will be held on May 5, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
All comments should be submitted electronically. To submit comments, please visit
The public roundtable will take place in the Copyright Office Hearing Room, LM–408 of the Madison Building of the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559. The Copyright Office strongly prefers that requests for participation be submitted electronically. A participation request form will be posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
Maria Strong, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202–707–1027 or by email at
The WIPO Internet Treaties—the WIPO Copyright Treaty(“WCT”)
The United States implemented the WIPO Internet Treaties through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) in 1998.
While Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act does not specifically include anything called a “making available” right, the activities involved in making a work available are covered under the exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, public display and/or public performance. . . . Which of these rights are invoked in any given context will depend on the nature of the “making available” activity.
The lack of explicit references to these rights in U.S. law, however, has led some courts and commentators to express uncertainty over how the existing rights in Title 17 may apply to various methods of making of copyrighted works available to the public, including in the digital environment. Especially in the Internet era, in any given case several of these rights (reproduction, distribution, public performance, and public display) may be at issue, depending on the facts involved.
Courts, academics, and practitioners particularly have focused on the scope of the distribution right under Section 106 and have debated whether it fully encompasses the making available of a copyrighted work without proof of an actual distribution.
A recent Tenth Circuit decision,
Other courts have addressed the scope of the distribution right in the online context and have reached similarly conflicting results. The Ninth Circuit in
In sum, while Congress and the Copyright Office have agreed that U.S. law covers the making available right of the WCT, courts have encountered difficulties in evaluating the scope of this interactive right, and the level of evidence needed to establish liability, in the specific cases before them.
In a letter dated December 19, 2013, Representative Melvin L. Watt requested that the Copyright Office “assess the state of U.S. law recognizing and protecting `making available' and `communicating to the public' rights for copyright holders. . . . In light of the rapidly changing technology and inconsistency in the various court discussions of these rights . . . it is important that the Copyright Office study the current state of the law in the United States.” Specifically, Representative Watt asked the Office to review and assess: “(1) How the existing bundle of exclusive rights under Title 17 covers the making available and communication to the public rights in the context of digital on-demand transmissions such as peer-to-peer networks, streaming services, and music downloads, as well as more broadly in the digital environment; (2) how foreign laws have interpreted and implemented the relevant provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties; and (3) the feasibility and necessity of amending U.S. law to strengthen or clarify our law in this area.”
On January 14, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet held a hearing during which two witnesses were asked to address the issue of the making available right.
In light of uncertainty among some courts regarding the nature and scope of the making available and communication to the public rights, and to facilitate the study requested by Representative Watt, the Copyright Office seeks public comments on the three main issues listed above. The Office poses additional questions on these three topics below, and requests that commenters identify the questions they are answering in their responses.
a. How does the existing bundle of exclusive rights currently in Title 17 cover the making available and communication to the public rights in the context of digital on-demand transmissions such as peer-to-peer networks, streaming services, and downloads of copyrighted content, as well as more broadly in the digital environment?
b. Do judicial opinions interpreting Section 106 and the making available right in the framework of tangible works provide sufficient guidance for the digital realm?
a. How have foreign laws implemented the making available right (as found in WCT Article 8 and WPPT Articles 10 and 14)? Has such implementation provided more or less legal clarity in those countries in the context of digital distribution of copyrighted works?
b. How have courts in foreign countries evaluated their national implementation of the making available right in these two WIPO treaties? Are there any specific case results or related legislative components that might present attractive options for possible congressional consideration?
a. If Congress continues to determine that the Section 106 exclusive rights provide a making available right in the digital environment, is there a need for Congress to take any additional steps to clarify the law to avoid potential conflicting outcomes in future litigation? Why or why not?
b. If Congress concludes that Section 106 requires further clarification of the scope of the making available right in the digital environment, how should the law be amended to incorporate this right more explicitly?
c. Would adding an explicit “making available” right significantly broaden the scope of copyright protection beyond what it is today? Why or why not? Would existing rights in Section 106 also have to be recalibrated?
d. Would any amendment to the “making available” right in Title 17 raise any First Amendment concerns? If so, how can any potential issues in this area be avoided?
e. If an explicit right is added, what, if any, corresponding exceptions or limitations should be considered for addition to the copyright law?
If there are any pertinent issues not discussed above, the Office encourages interested parties to raise those matters in their comments.
On May 5, 2014, the Copyright Office will hold a public roundtable to hear stakeholder views and to initiate discussion of the three topics identified above. The agenda and the process for submitting requests to participate in the public roundtable will be available on the Copyright Office Web site on or about April 7, 2014.
Requests to participate in the public roundtable should be submitted online at
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
Notice of cancellation of public meetings and town hall meeting.
This notice cancels the hearings and town hall that were to be held on Tuesday, February 25, 2014.
The public hearings and town hall originally scheduled for Tuesday, February 25, 2014, are cancelled.
The hearings and town hall were to be held Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at the Embassy Suites Fayetteville Fort Bragg, 4760 Lake Valley Drive, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28303.
Christopher Nuneviller, Associate Director, Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, P.O. Box 13170, Arlington VA 22209, telephone 703–692–2080, fax 703–697–8330, email
A notice of public hearings and town hall meeting that appeared in the
The public hearings and town hall meeting will be rescheduled for a later date.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by April 28, 2014 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
National Science Foundation.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the National Science Foundation has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).
Comments must be submitted March 27, 2014.
Written comments may be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
To request additional information, please contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable
The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide the National Science Foundation's projected average estimates for the next three years:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
2:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 5, 2014.
NeighborWorks America—Gramlich Boardroom, 999 North Capitol Street NE., Washington DC 20002.
Open (with the exception of Executive Session).
Jeffrey Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary, (202) 760–4101;
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
This information collection request will also categorize these forms as common forms. Once OMB approves the use of these common forms, all Federal agencies using the form may request use of this common form without additional 60- or 30-day notice and comment
Submit, by April 28, 2014, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee, publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC–2014–0025. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Kristen Benney (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, by telephone at 301–415–6355, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on March 6–8, 2014, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92–463, and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning changes in rates of general applicability for the competitive Standard Post product. The changes are associated with a new price category identified as Limited Overland Routes. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Brian Corcoran, Acting General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On February 14, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice with the Commission of changes in rates of general applicability for the competitive Standard Post product.
The changes introduce a new price category—Limited Overland Routes—for the Standard Post product.
The Postal Service indicates that the price changes would set the prices for the Limited Overland Routes category at prices equal to those in effect last year. Notice at 1. It states that the new price category will only apply to a small, discrete number of designated ZIP Codes with low volume.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Pamela A. Thompson is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2014–27 to consider the matters raised in this docket.
2. The Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. The additional information requested in this Order is due no later than February 26, 2014.
4. Comments on the Notice are due no later than March 5, 2014.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The principal purpose of the change is to provide for the clearance of new CDS contracts that are Western European Sovereign CDS contracts referencing the Republic of Ireland, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, and Kingdom of Spain (the “New Sovereign Contracts”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the additional CDS products is to allow ICE Clear Europe Clearing Members the ability to clear additional European CDS products through ICE Clear Europe's platform.
ICE Clear Europe has identified Western European Sovereign CDS Contracts as a product that has become increasingly important for market participants to manage risk and express views with respect to the European sovereign credit markets. ICE Clear Europe believes clearance of the New Sovereign Contracts will benefit the markets for credit default swaps on Western European sovereigns by offering to market participants the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. The terms of the New Sovereign Contracts will be governed by Paragraph 12 of the CDS Procedures. Clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts will not require any changes to ICE Clear Europe's existing Clearing Rules and CDS Procedures (although ICE Clear Europe has updated its risk management
ICE Clear Europe's CDS risk management framework, including the margin methodology (the “CDS Model”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to capture General Wrong Way Risk. Under the enhanced CDS Model, an additional contribution to initial margin will be required when the seller of protection exhibits a high degree of association with an underlying Western European Sovereign reference entity by virtue of domicile (qualitative approach) or high spread return correlation (quantitative approach). To address General Wrong Way Risk arising from clearing member domicile, ICE Clear Europe will require full collateralization of the jump-to-default loss for a protection seller under a contract referencing the sovereign where the protection seller is domiciled.
Under the quantitative approach, which applies where the protection seller is not domiciled in the jurisdiction of the underlying sovereign, two types of thresholds are introduced: A loss threshold and a correlation threshold. Additional General Wrong Way Risk collateralization will be collected if both thresholds are exceeded. If the spread return correlation between the member and the sovereign is above the correlation threshold and the sovereign CDS jump-to-default loss is above the loss threshold, General Wrong Way Risk collateralization is assessed as a function of the spread return correlation and amount by which the loss threshold is exceeded. The charge becomes more conservative as the spread return correlation increases. The application of additional initial margin requirements under the quantitative approach is not subject to discretion, although the thresholds are subject to review by the CDS Risk Committee as part of its periodic review of ICE Clear Europe's margin methodology.
Other forms of wrong way risk arising from currency risk are also addressed. To mitigate the currency risk between a sovereign reference entity and a New Sovereign Contract involving that entity, and to facilitate greater market liquidity, the New Sovereign Contracts (and related margin and guaranty fund requirements) are denominated in U.S. dollars, rather than Euro. In addition, the rules contain prohibitions on self-referencing trades (i.e., trades where the clearing member is an affiliate of the underlying sovereign reference entity). Such trades may not be submitted for clearing, and if a clearing member subsequently becomes affiliated with the underlying reference entity, the rules applicable to New Sovereign Contracts provide for the termination of relevant positions.
The ICE Clear Europe CDS Risk Policy, the CDS Risk Model Description methodology document and CDS Wrong Way Risk Policy have been updated to account for these additional features of the risk model for the New Sovereign Contracts.
ICE Clear Europe believes that clearing of the proposed New Sovereign Contracts is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed New Sovereign Contracts would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. ICE Clear Europe does not anticipate that its commencement of clearing for the New Sovereign Contracts will adversely affect the trading market for those contracts or for CDS more generally. Specifically, allowing clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts will provide market participants with the additional choice to have their transactions in these types of contracts cleared, and should generally promote the further development of the market for these contracts. Moreover, ICE Clear Europe has established fair and objective criteria for eligibility to clear the New Sovereign Contracts, consistent with its criteria for other cleared CDS.Although clearance of New Sovereign Contracts may result in an increase in margin requirements for some clearing members as a result of the General Wrong Way Risk requirements, ICE Clear Europe believes that these changes will properly align margin requirements to the risks presented by such clearing members with respect to the New Sovereign Contracts. As a result, ICE Clear Europe is of the view that these changes are necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act and the Commission's regulations thereunder, including the financial resources and risk management requirements of Rule 17Ad–22.
Written comments relating to the current proposal for acceptance of the New Sovereign Contracts for clearing have not been solicited or received. One comment letter was received in connection with ICE Clear Europe's prior filing with respect thereto (File No. 2012–08), which suggested, in relevant part, consideration of additional wrong way risk raised by credit exposures of protection sellers to underlying sovereign reference entities. (The letter raised other issues concerning the disclosure of risk management processes generally and the effectiveness of market-standard sovereign CDS contracts as a hedge, which ICE Clear Europe believes are outside the scope of this rule change). ICE Clear Europe believes that the combination of the qualitative and quantitative approaches discussed herein provides appropriate initial margin protection for General Wrong Way Risk, and notes that ICE Clear Europe management and the CDS Risk Committee regularly review the appropriateness of the margin methodology. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
The CDS Risk Committee raised no objection to the clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts on the terms described herein on December 10, 2013. The clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts was approved by the ICE Clear Europe board on August 1, 2012.
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.
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–ICEEU–2014–04 and should be submitted on or before March 18, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 27, 2013, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR–OCC–2013–23 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The rule change, as approved, amends OCC's by-laws to provide OCC with authority in emergency circumstances, subject to certain conditions, to waive or suspend the operation of its by-laws, rules, policies and procedures, or any other rules issued by OCC (collectively, “Rules”) or to extend any time fixed thereby for the doing of any act or acts. OCC previously sought action by the Division of Trading and Markets on an ad hoc basis whenever OCC needed to temporarily waive or suspend certain of its Rules, or extend the time for doing any act or acts specified by its Rules, in order to help facilitate the national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Under the rule change, as approved, OCC's Board of Directors, Chairman,
The rule change, as approved, requires OCC to notify the Commission and the CFTC within two hours after exercising its emergency powers.
OCC is permitted to continue the emergency action for up to thirty calendar days unless the Commission or the CFTC, as applicable, objects in writing. If OCC wishes to continue the emergency action beyond the thirty-day period, then OCC is required to file a
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. By giving OCC the ability to respond promptly in the event of an emergency, the proposed rule change will help to minimize the risk of a disruption to OCC's clearance and settlement services. This will help facilitate the prompt clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and will also enable OCC to coordinate its actions with those of other clearing agencies that already possess emergency powers similar to those at issue here. Further, the proposed rule change circumscribes OCC's emergency powers by requiring it to notify the Commission and the CFTC whenever OCC invokes those powers, and by further requiring OCC to discontinue any changes made under those powers if the Commission or the CFTC, as applicable, objects. These procedural safeguards will help to ensure that OCC exercises its emergency powers only in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, particularly the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
It is therefore
On December 24, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The ADF is a quotation collection and trade reporting facility that provides ADF Market Participants the ability to post quotations, display orders and report transactions in NMS stocks
To ensure that the ADF has sufficient capacity to handle the volume of quote, order and trade data submitted to the ADF without maintaining unused data capacity, FINRA proposes to adopt the Plan for those FINRA members that opt to utilize the ADF for quoting and trade reporting. According to FINRA, the proposed Plan is similar to the approach of other data plans, notably the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”) and the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”; together, “CTA/CQ Plans”),
Pursuant to the Plan, each ADF Trading Center would complete an initial ADF Trading Center Capacity Certification process,
The Plan would also set forth fees for excess and shortfall capacity usage, and provides that FINRA would pass through any penalties incurred under the NMS data plans among the ADF Trading Centers that exceed their projected message traffic.
In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would be able to make mid-quarter extraordinary system upgrades to accommodate higher message volume or higher message per second throughput, and assess ADF Trading Centers that exceed their certified capacity for those costs accordingly. Moreover, to the extent that an ADF Trading Center's data usage, in the sole discretion of FINRA staff, materially exceeds the ADF Trading Center's certified capacity, the Plan would allow FINRA to incrementally reduce the ADF Trading Center's data port sessions to ensure that data levels stay at or below reasonable levels. Such termination may occur on an intra-day basis and would be proportionate to the extent to which the data overage threatens the ADF system's stability and/or the ability of FINRA to meet its regulatory obligations with respect to the operation of the ADF. Further, the Plan specifies that infrastructure costs associated with building and implementing the capacity and environments (including, but not limited to, labor, hardware, software, installation, testing, etc., as well as associated on-going operational costs) would be borne by FINRA except for extraordinary upgrades.
Finally, in addition to adopting the Plan, FINRA also proposes to amend the Certification to (i) require ADF Trading Centers to comply with the Plan, and (ii) make other minor or non-substantive changes, such as revising the means by which an ADF Trading Center may provide information and replacing references to NASD with FINRA.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act
The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed Plan should help to ensure that FINRA is able to maintain a high level of operability for the ADF, as well as enhance FINRA's ability to submit accurate volume projections to the NMS data plans. The Commission notes that under the proposed Plan, each ADF Trading Center would be required to submit its projected capacity needs and that FINRA would honor those requests subject to quarterly volume tests. ADF Trading Centers, however, would still have the ability to increase and decrease their capacity projections for their second quarter, subject to certain limitations, in the event that their actual capacity usage deviates from their projected capacity usage.
The Commission also believes that FINRA's proposed fees and the pass-through of any SIP penalties are consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that the fees should help to ensure that ADF Trading Centers provide meaningful volume projections to ensure adequate, without unnecessary, capacity. The Commission notes that the fees and SIP penalties would not be assessed during an ADF Trading Center's first quarter of operations on the ADF or a portion thereof. In this regard, the Commission believes that the proposal should allow a new ADF Trading Center the opportunity to acquire data on its quote, order, and trade reporting activity on the ADF prior to making capacity projections to which the fees and SIP penalties would apply.
The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed changes to the Certification are also consistent with Act. The Commission believes that requiring an ADF Trading Center to certify that it will comply with the terms of the Plan should help facilitate FINRA's ability to administer the ADF. Moreover, the change to the Certification relating to the manner in which an ADF Trading Center would provide public notice of certain information should increase the means through which such notice may be provided. The other remaining changes to the Certification, such as changes references from NASD to FINRA and TRACS to ADF, should make the Certification more accurate and up-to-date.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to list and trade the shares of the First Trust Managed Municipal ETF (the “Fund”) of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund III (the “Trust”) under Nasdaq Rule 5735 (“Managed Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
First Trust Advisors L.P. will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) to the Fund. First Trust Portfolios L.P. (the “Distributor”) will be the principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund's Shares. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (“BBH”) will act as the administrator, accounting agent, custodian and transfer agent to the Fund.
Paragraph (g) of Rule 5735 provides that if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.
The primary investment objective of the Fund will be to generate current income that is exempt from regular federal income taxes and its secondary objective will be long-term capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions,
The Fund will invest at least 65% of its net assets in investment grade securities, which are securities that are rated at the time of investment in one of the four highest credit quality categories by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization rating that security or, if unrated, determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality.
To pursue its investment objectives, the Fund may invest in interest rate swaps,
The Fund generally expects that no more than 20% of the value of the Fund's net assets will be invested in
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest substantially all of its assets to meet its investment objectives as described above. In addition, the Fund may invest its assets as generally described below.
The Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in taxable municipal securities. In addition, the Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in distressed Municipal Securities.
Short-term debt securities, which do not include Municipal Securities, are securities from issuers having a long-term debt rating of at least A by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“S&P Ratings”), Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody's”) or Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) and having a maturity of one year or less. The use of temporary investments will not be a part of a principal investment strategy of the Fund.
Short-term debt securities are defined to include, without limitation, the following: (1) Fixed rate and floating rate U.S. government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. government agencies or instrumentalities; (2) certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association; (3) bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions; (4) repurchase agreements,
The Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in the securities of other investment companies, including money market funds, closed-end funds, open-end funds and other ETFs.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, in accordance with Commission guidance.
The Fund may not invest 25% or more of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries. This restriction does not apply to (a) Municipal Securities issued by governments or political subdivisions of governments, (b) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or (c) securities of other investment companies.
The Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Fund will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at net asset value (“NAV”)
Creations and redemptions must be made by an Authorized Participant or through a firm that is either a member of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) or a Depository Trust Company participant, that, in each case, must have executed an agreement that has been agreed to by the Distributor and BBH with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. All standard orders to create Creation Units must be received by the transfer agent no later than the closing time of the regular trading session on the New York Stock Exchange (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) (the “Closing Time”), in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt, not later than the Closing Time, of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the transfer agent and only on a business day.
The Fund's custodian, through the NSCC, will make available on each business day, prior to the opening of business of the Exchange, the list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising the Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Cash Component (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following business day.
The Fund's NAV will be determined as of the close of trading (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on each day the New York Stock Exchange is open for business. NAV will be calculated for the Fund by taking the market price of the Fund's total assets, including interest or dividends accrued but not yet collected, less all liabilities, and dividing such amount by the total number of Shares outstanding. The result, rounded to the nearest cent, will be the NAV per Share. All valuations will be subject to review by the Trust Board or its delegate.
The Fund's investments will be valued daily at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any investment, at fair value, in each case in accordance with valuation procedures (which may be revised from time to time) adopted by the Trust Board (“Valuation Procedures”) and in accordance with the 1940 Act. A market valuation generally means a valuation (i) obtained from an exchange, an independent pricing service (“Pricing Service”), or a major market maker (or dealer) or (ii) based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of value supplied by an exchange, a Pricing Service, or a major market maker (or dealer). The information summarized below is based on the Valuation Procedures as currently in effect; however, as noted above, the Valuation Procedures are amended from time to time and, therefore, such information is subject to change.
Certain securities in which the Fund may invest will not be listed on any securities exchange or board of trade. Such securities will typically be bought and sold by institutional investors in individually negotiated private transactions that function in many respects like an over-the-counter secondary market, although typically no formal market makers will exist. Certain securities, particularly debt securities, will have few or no trades, or trade infrequently, and information regarding a specific security may not be widely available or may be incomplete. Accordingly, determinations of the fair value of debt securities may be based on infrequent and dated information. Because there is less reliable, objective data available, elements of judgment may play a greater role in valuation of debt securities than for other types of securities. Typically, debt securities (other than those described in the next sentence) will be valued using information provided by a Pricing Service. Debt securities having a remaining maturity of 60 days or less when purchased will be valued at cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts.
Equity securities (including ETFs and closed-end funds) listed on any exchange other than the Exchange will be valued at the last sale price on the business day as of which such value is being determined. Equity securities (including ETFs and closed-end funds) listed on the Exchange will be valued at the official closing price on the business day as of which such value is being determined. If there has been no sale on such day, or no official closing price in the case of securities traded on the Exchange, the securities will be valued using fair value pricing, as described below. Equity securities traded on more than one securities exchange will be valued at the last sale price or official closing price, as applicable, on the business day as of which such value is being determined at the close of the exchange representing the principal market for such securities. Non-fixed income securities traded in the over-the-counter market will be valued at the midpoint between the bid and the asked price, if available, and otherwise at the closing bid prices. Registered open-end management investment companies (other than ETFs, which will be valued as described above) will be valued at their net asset values as reported by such registered open-end management investment companies to Pricing Services.
Exchange-traded options and futures contracts will be valued at the closing price in the market where such contracts are principally traded. Over-the-counter futures contracts and options will be valued at the midpoint between the bid and the asked price, if available, and otherwise at the closing bid prices.
Interest rate swaps will be valued using a Pricing Service or, if the Pricing Service does not provide a value, the Adviser's pricing committee will then attempt to obtain one or more quotes provided by the selling dealer or financial institution and will value the swaps accordingly.
Certain securities may not be able to be priced by pre-established pricing methods. Such securities may be valued by the Trust Board or its delegate at fair value. The use of fair value pricing by the Fund will be governed by the Valuation Procedures and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 1940 Act. Valuing the Fund's securities using fair value pricing will result in using prices for those securities that may differ from current market
The Fund's Web site (
In addition, for the Fund, an estimated value, defined in Rule 5735(c)(3) as the “Intraday Indicative Value,” that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's Disclosed Portfolio, will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service,
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of the Fund on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Investors will also be able to obtain the Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's annual and semi-annual reports (together, “Shareholder Reports”), and its Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR, filed twice a year. The Fund's SAI and Shareholder Reports will be available free upon request from the Fund, and those documents and the Form N–CSR and Form N–SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Additional information regarding the Fund and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, Fund holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes will be included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Fund that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change will be defined in the Registration Statement.
The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and
Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Nasdaq will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., Eastern time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in Nasdaq Rule 5735(b)(3), the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in Managed Fund Shares traded on the Exchange is $0.01.
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”),
At least 90% of the Fund's net assets that are invested in exchange-traded futures and exchange-traded options (in the aggregate) will be invested in instruments that trade in markets that are members of ISG or are parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Fund and the applicable NAV Calculation Time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Fund will be publicly available on the Fund's Web site.
Nasdaq believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Nasdaq Rule 5735. The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and also FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Adviser is not a broker-dealer, but it is affiliated with a broker-dealer and is required to implement a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the Fund's portfolio. In addition, paragraph (g) of Nasdaq Rule 5735 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading
The primary investment objective of the Fund will be to generate current income that is exempt from regular federal income taxes and its secondary objective will be long-term capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions, the Fund will seek to achieve its investment objectives by investing at least 80% of its net assets (including investment borrowings) in Municipal Securities. The Fund will invest at least 65% of its net assets in investment grade securities. The Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in taxable municipal securities and up to 10% of its net assets in distressed Municipal Securities. The Fund generally expects that no more than 20% of the value of the Fund's net assets will be invested in derivative instruments; however, there will be no limitation on the Fund's investments in derivative instruments to be used by the Fund solely for hedging purposes. The Fund's investments in derivatives will be consistent with the Fund's investment objectives and the 1940 Act and will not be used to seek to achieve a multiple or inverse multiple of an index. Also, the Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, in accordance with Commission guidance. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of the Fund's net assets are held in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.
The Fund's investments will be valued daily at market value or, in the absence of market value with respect to any investment, at fair value, in each case in accordance with the Valuation Procedures and in accordance with the 1940 Act.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data service, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors and broadly displayed at least every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Regular Market Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via Nasdaq proprietary quote and trade services, as well as in accordance with the Unlisted Trading Privileges and the Consolidated Tape Association plans for the Shares. One source of price information for Municipal Securities is the MSRB's EMMA. Additionally, the MSRB offers trade data subscription services that permit subscribers to obtain information about municipal securities transactions. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or Pricing Services will also be available for fixed income securities generally. Intraday executable price information for fixed income securities, equity securities and derivatives will be available from major broker-dealer firms and major market data vendors. For exchange-traded assets, intraday price information will also be available directly from the applicable listing exchanges. Intraday price information will also generally be available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg, Markit, and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors.
The Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121 or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Furthermore, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded fund that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. 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–NASDAQ–2014–019 and should be submitted on or before March 18, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 5 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to amend its fees to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on March 3, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to amend its Rules at Chapter XV, Section 5 to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the ORF. The ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each member for all options transactions executed or cleared by the member that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account of the member's clearing firm at OCC) regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
In response to feedback from market participants requesting greater certainty as to when ORF changes may occur, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Pricing Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August.
The proposed change is not intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members would have in complying with the proposed change.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it will give market participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide members with better notice of any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF. In any event, because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee or credit changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members, or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 amend its Pricing Schedule to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on March 3, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web Site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Section IV, Part D to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the ORF. The ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each member for all options transactions executed or cleared by the member that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account of the member's clearing firm at OCC) regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is collected indirectly from members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation.
In response to feedback from market participants requesting greater certainty as to when ORF changes may occur, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Pricing Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August.
The proposed change is not intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it will give market participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
The Exchange Exchange [sic] does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide members with better notice of any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF. In any event, because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee or credit changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members, or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.
The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date and time and agenda for the 3rd quarter meetings of the National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.
The meetings for the 3rd quarter will be held on the following dates:
This meeting will be held via conference call.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers.
The purpose of these meetings is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:
The meetings are open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be a listening participant must contact Monika Nixon by fax or email. Her contact information is Monika Nixon, Program Specialist, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone 202–205–7310, Fax 202–481–5624, email,
Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Monika Nixon at the information above.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to March 27, 2014.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Susan B. Summers—Chief, Medical Clearances at Department of State, Office of Medical Clearances, SA–15 Room 400, 1800 North Kent St. Rosslyn, VA. 22209, who may be reached on (703) 875–5413 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to March 27, 2014.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Susan B. Summers—Chief, Medical Clearances at Department of State, Office of Medical Clearances, SA–15 Room 400, 1800 North Kent St. Rosslyn, VA. 22209, who may be reached on (703) 875–5413 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments from the public on the creation of the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee and request for nominees to that Committee.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is, pursuant to Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(c)(1)) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 1), establishing the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) to provide policy advice on issues involving trade and from the perspective of those concerned with public interest issues. USTR seeks comments on the Committee's objectives and the scope of its activities. USTR is also seeking nominations for membership on the Committee.
Written comments are due by COB on Tuesday, March 25, 2014. Nominations for membership will be accepted at any time, however, in order to be considered for the initial populating of the committee, nominations should be made by March 25, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted electronically via the Internet at
Questions regarding this request for comments should be directed to Tiffany Enoch, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement at (202) 395–6120.
Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), directs the President to obtain information and advice from representative elements of the private sector and the non-Federal government sector regarding U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives. Among other mechanisms, Section 135(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that:
(1) The President may establish individual general policy advisory committees for industry, labor, agriculture, services, investment, defense, and other interests, as appropriate, to provide general policy advice on matters referred to in subsection (a) of this section.
The President has delegated authority to the USTR to appoint policy advisory committees (“Tier 2”).
Section 135(c)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 calls for each general policy advisory committee “insofar as is practicable,” “[to] be representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, service, investment, defense, and other interests . . . including small business interests.”
Section 135(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 provides, in relevant part that, “the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act apply . . . (2) to all . . . advisory committees which may be established under subsection (c) of this section.” The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1–14) requires that legislation establishing or authorizing the establishment of an advisory committee “require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee” (5 U.S.C. 5).
With the creation of the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee, a new forum for discussions on public interest aspects of trade issues will be available. The objectives and scope of activities of the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee include, but are not limited to:
(1) Providing the U.S. Trade Representative with policy advice on issues including but not limited to, public health, international development, and consumer protection.
(2) Providing the President, the USTR, and Congress with reports on trade agreements, following their conclusions, which include an advisory opinion on whether and to what extent the agreement promotes the interests of the United States.
USTR solicits comments on the objectives and scope of activities for the Public Interest Advisory Committee, including comments on: the appropriate scope of viewpoints to be represented in such a committee to ensure the committee is fairly balanced; how included viewpoints would improve the quality of information and advice provided to USTR; how included viewpoints would add value and contribute to the Committee's mission to provide general trade policy advice; any additional objectives or activities; modifications to aforementioned objectives, activities or viewpoints; and any other pertinent insights.
Written comments must be received by COB on Tuesday, March 25, 2014. In order to ensure the most timely and expeditious receipt and consideration of comments, USTR has arranged to accept on-line submissions via
The
We strongly urge submitters to avail themselves of the electronic filing, if at all possible. If an on-line submission is impossible, alternative arrangements must be made with Ms. Enoch, at (202) 395–6120.
USTR is also soliciting nominations for membership on the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee (PITAC). In order to be appointed to the PITAC, the following eligibility requirements must be met:
1. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen;
2. The applicant must not be a full-time employee of a U.S. governmental entity;
3. The applicant must not be a federally-registered lobbyist;
4. The applicant must not be registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;
5. The applicant must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance; and
6. The applicant must represent a U.S. organization that represents whose members (or funders) have a demonstrated interest in international trade.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, including trade association, labor union and organization, and nongovernmental organization (NGO), established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. entity (or entities), as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. To qualify as a U.S. organization, more than 50 percent of the board of directors (or comparable governing body) and more than 50 percent of the membership of the organization to be represented must be U.S. citizens, U.S. organizations, or U.S. entities. Additionally, at least 50 percent of the organization's annual revenue must be attributable to nongovernmental U.S. sources.
In order to be considered for PITAC membership, a nominee should submit:
(1) Name, title, affiliation, and relevant contact information of the individual requesting consideration;
(2) A sponsor letter on the entity's or organization's letterhead containing a brief description of why the applicant should be considered for membership;
(3) The applicant's personal resume demonstrating knowledge of international trade issues;
(4) An affirmative statement that the applicant and the organization he or she represents meet all eligibility requirements;
(5) An affirmative statement that the applicant is not a federally registered lobbyist, and that the applicant understands that if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a PITAC member if the applicant becomes a federally registered lobbyist; and
(6) Information regarding the sponsoring entity, including the control of the entity or organization to be represented and the organization's demonstrated interest in international trade. As noted, members of the committee are appointed to represent the views of their sponsoring entities. As such, committee members will generally serve as representatives of those organizations and not as Special Government Employees.
USTR will consider applicants for membership on the PITAC that meet the eligibility criteria based on the following criteria: ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's interests on trade matters; ability to carry out the objectives of the PITAC and ensuring that the PITAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.
Submit applications to Tiffany Enoch, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental and Affairs and Public Engagement. Send applications to:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this notice. Persons may submit public comments electronically to
To submit comments via
The
A person requesting that information contained in a comment that he/she submitted be treated as confidential business information, must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Cece Jones-Davis at (202) 395–3692. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
Comments on the application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Christopher Hugunin, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Vinh Ngo, Accountant for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, at the following address: Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55450.
Comments previously submitted as part of the air carriers and foreign air carriers consultation process under 14 CFR 158.23 and the public notice process under 14 CFR 158.24 do not have to be resubmitted in order to be considered by the FAA.
Christopher Hugunin, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Minneapolis Airports District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450, (612) 253–4610.
Additionally, a copy to examine can be found at the following location: Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55450. Please contact Vinh Ngo at (612) 726–8160 to set up an appointment.
The application may also be viewed online at
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On March 25, 2013, the Metropolitan Airports Commission submitted an application to impose and use revenues from a PFC at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
On April 25, 2013, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Metropolitan Airports Commission was not substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The Metropolitan Airports Commission supplemented the application on January 29, 2014. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than May 29, 2014.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation Performance.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the ninth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of Navigation Performance.
The meeting will be held March 17–21, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Eurocae Headquarters, 102 Rue Etienne Dolet, 92240 Malakoff, France.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330–0662 or (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 227. The agenda will include the following:
• Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
• Agenda Overview
• Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
○ Plan for MASPS Change 1
○ Plan for MOPS
• Committee Coordination on Dynamic RNP (SC–214), and A–IM (SC–186).
• Plenary Review—MASPS/MOPS
○ Planned Work Schedule (Note, schedule subject to change based upon progress/pace/issue)
○ 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day
• Technical Requirements Breakout Sessions (as needed)
• Other Business
• Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159, RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems (GPS).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the ninety-first meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 159, Global Positioning Systems (GPS).
The meeting will be held March 11–14, 2014 from 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330–0652/(202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 159. The agenda will include the following:
• Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.
• Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, ARINC & A4A Rooms Room.
• Working Group 2 Working Group 4, GPS/Precision Landing, MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.
• Working Group 4, GPS/GPS/Precision Landing Guidance MacIntosh-NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.
• Afternoon—1:00–5:00 p.m., Working Group 7, GPS/Antennas, ARINC & A4A Room.
• Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
• Approval of Summary of the Ninetieth Meeting held March 15, 2013, RTCA Paper No. 197–13/SC159–1009.
• Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for Resolution.
• GPS/3nd Civil Frequency (WG–1)
• GPS/WAAS (WG–2)
• GPS/GLONASS (WG–2A)
• GPS/Inertial (WG–2C)
• GPS/Precision Landing Guidance (WG–4)
• GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG–5)
• GPS/Interference (WG–6)
• GPS/Antennas (WG–7)
• Review of EUROCAE Activities.
• Briefing—DOT's GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Plan
• Assignment/Review of Future Work
• Other Business.
• Date and Place of Next Meeting.
• Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Seventy Seventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.
The meeting will be held March 18–20, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 147. The agenda will include the following:
• Opening Plenary Session
○ Chairmen's Opening Remarks
○ Introductions
○ Approval of Minutes From 76th Meeting of SC 147
○ Approval of Agenda
○ Update From Eurocontrol/WG–75
• Review High-Level Goals for MOPS Effort
○
• Review of ACAS X Concepts
○ Agreements From ACAS X Concepts review
○ Review and Discussion of Draft MOPS Section 1
○
• Discussion of MOPS Structure
• Introduction to Algorithm Description Document (180 min/9:00–12:00)—TCAS Program Office
○ Overview of STM
○ Overview of TRM
○
• SESAR Activity Updates
○ Update on SESAR work Update & Progress (4.8.2/9.47)
○ Results on TCAS/ACAS X Interoperability Eval
○ Complementary Results on ACAS X Eval
○
• Logic Table Optimization and Tuning
• Overview of Run 12 Validation Results
• Draft SC 147 Schedule for ACAS X MOPS
• Coordination Sub-Group Schedule and Scope
• 2015 ACAS X Flight Test Goals and Scenarios
• Revisit Agenda Item #2—High-Level MOPS Goals
• Other/new business/Overflow
• Closing Session
○ Next Meeting Location
○ Action Item review
• Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before March 17, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2014–0052 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alphonso Pendergrass (202) 493–5260
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before March 17, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2013–1075 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267–4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before March 17, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2013–0889 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267–4024, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before March 17, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2010–0134 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Katherine L. Haley, ARM–203, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective March 5, 2014. Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2003–16564; FMCSA–2005–22194; FMCSA–2007–27897], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 11 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 11 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 12536; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 6829; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52419; 72 FR 62897; 73 FR 8392; 74 FR 64124; 75 FR 8184; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 7233). Each of these 11 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by March 27, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 11 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, to submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption, request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2 years in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–2013–0442 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001, or via email at
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 15 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to drivers who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce. Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Mr. Blood is a 60 year-old class B CDL holder in New York. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1975. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Blood receiving an exemption.
Mr. Cultice is a 40 year-old driver in Alabama. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2006. He does not take anti-seizure medication. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Cultice receiving an exemption.
Mr. Duprey is a 53 year-old class A CDL holder in Connecticut. He has a history of post traumatic seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1992. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Duprey receiving an exemption.
Mr. Gatison is a 52 year old driver in Connecticut. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Gatison receiving an exemption.
Mr. Hines is a 43 year-old driver in Colorado. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2008. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Hines receiving an exemption.
Mr. Ho vey is a 52 year-old class A CDL holder in Oklahoma. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free for at least 10 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for 10 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to continue to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Hovey receiving an exemption.
Mr. Lobo is a 24 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of 2 possible seizures and has remained seizure free for 10 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 2 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Lobo receiving an exemption.
Mr. Mion is a 51 year-old class A CDL holder in Colorado. He has no history of seizure and takes anti-seizure medication for Essential Tremor. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Mion receiving an exemption.
Mr. Norland is a 39 year-old class B CDL holder in Minnesota. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 25 years. He discontinued one of his seizure medications in January 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Norland receiving an exemption.
Mr. Pinto is a 24 year-old class B CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 9 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Pinto receiving an exemption.
Mr. Puterbaugh is a 23 year-old driver in New Jersey. He has a history of juvenile epilepsy and has remained seizure free for 12 years. He has not taken anti-seizure medication for 6 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a school bus. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Puterbaugh receiving an exemption.
Mr. Robinson is a 33 year-old driver in North Carolina. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free for over 10 years. He has not taken anti-seizure medication for over 6 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Robinson receiving an exemption.
Mr. Spece is a 55 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of seizure disorder and has remained seizure free for 10 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for 4 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Spece receiving an exemption.
Mr. Teigland is a 57 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1978. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Teigland receiving an exemption.
Mr. Thomas is a 26 year-old class A CDL holder in Maryland. He has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2000. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Thomas receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 58 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0002 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 58 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Abbott, age 49, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist certified that, in his medical opinion, Mr. Abbott does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Abbott reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 332,800 miles. He holds a Class B Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Alfano, 56, has had a macular scar in his left eye since 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “He visually is able to perform driving tasks needed to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Alfano reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 296,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Amans, 44, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1989. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “I certify that in my medical opinion, Corey has sufficient vision to perform the driving test required to operate a commercial vehicle based on the minimum Wisconsin standards for commercial drivers.” Mr. Amans reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a Class BCDM CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Anderson, 57, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my professional opinion, his vision is adequate to perform the driving tasks necessary to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Anderson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Andrews, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/800. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist stated that, in his medical opinion, Mr. Andrews does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Andrews reported that he has driven straight trucks for 34 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 34 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Bailey, 45, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted that Mr. Bailey's vision condition will not affect the safe operation of a CMV. Mr. Bailey reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to signal a lane change or turn.
Mr. Bayron, 57, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “The patient was diagnosed with Amblyopia [
Mr. Benavidez, 41, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Thomas [
Mr. Broadway, 32, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “The ocular health of his eyes is stable and he would be able to drive truck [
Mr. Budde, 59, has had aphakia, exotropia, an irregular pupil, and retinal problems since 1973, causing a visual field defect. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Budde is aphakic, has retinal problems, exotropia, and an irregular pupil . . . Mr. Budde has the ability to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Budde reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 230,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Canupp, 57, has a retinal scar due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Based on our testing today, Mr. Cannupp [
Mr. Castleman, 43, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “It is my impression Mr. Castleman has adequate visual skills to properly perform his job duties of operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Castleman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Christianson, 56, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Based on these findings, I feel Mr. Christianson has the visual abilities to continue operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce because the visual loss in his left eye occurred in 1990 and has been stable since that time.” Mr. Christianson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 67,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Crum, 68, has had retinal scarring and traumatic optic neuropathy in his right eye since 1968. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “As Mr. Crum has been driving a commercial vehicle for 30+ years and his vision is stable, there appear to be no contraindications for him to continue to do so.” Mr. Crum reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 616,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 27 years, accumulating 405,000. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Denzler, 74, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “He does have sufficient vision to perform driving tasks for a commercial vehicle, as he has
Mr. Dickerson, 54, has had a mature cataract in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Mr. Joseph Dickerson is a 54 year old [
Mr. Duvel, 55, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “At this time he is visually stable and has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Duvel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 185,964 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Dykes, 54, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Overall, Mr. Dykes has good vision when fully corrected . . . He meets the requirements to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Dykes reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 111,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to obey a traffic law.
Mr. Fedder, 47, has had Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy his left eye since 1997. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “I, therefore, certify, [
Mr. Flitton, 37, has exotropia in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “He has a visual acuity of 20/20 and in my medical opinion has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Flitton reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gallo-Gomez, 41, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “After reviewing Mr. Gallo's [
Mr. Giagnacova, 51, has had a macular scar, retinal detachment, and a cataract in his right eye since 1983. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Michael Giagnacova has sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Giagnacova reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 140,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Gidey, 46, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “His vision is stable, has the ability to distinguish colors of traffic control signals, and in my opinion, has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Gidey reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 192,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Goodwin, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion the patient has sufficient vision to preform [
Mr. Gomez-Banda, 35, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/120. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted that there were no driving restrictions necessary for the patient to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Gomez-Banda reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 118,638 miles. He holds a Class CM CDL from
Mr. Karow, 50, has had glaucoma and amblyopia in his left eye since 1993. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “I hereby certify to these findings and report that [
Mr. Kockelman, 56, has a retinal detachment in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “in [
Mr. Knobloch, 56, has had choroidal melanoma in his right eye since 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “My estimation is that Mr. Knobloch retains sufficient visual acuity and visual perception to adequately drive a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Knobloch reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 2.88 million miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kolberg, 56, has a retinal detachment and retinal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic injury during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Patient is safe to operate a vehicle and to operate a CDL required [
Mr. La Fleur, 47, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my opinion, Mr. LaFleur [
Mr. Lindner, 31, has had glaucoma in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “I feel Dennis has sufficient vision to preform [
Mr. Lindesmith, 45, has an enucleated left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Lindesmith has been driving safely under these conditions since 1999 and, in my opinion, has sufficient vision to safely perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lindesmith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 295,650 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 4.03 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and two convictions for moving violations in a CMV; one conviction was for failure to stop for a stop sign; the other conviction was for exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph.
Mr. Lopez, 63, has had a macular hole in his right eye since 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Lopez has sufficient vision to operate [
Mr. Mavraganis, 25, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Although Thomas has very poor vision in his left eye, his vision in his right eye is completely normal, therefore his vision is sufficient to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Mavraganis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 52,500 miles. He holds an operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. McEachern, 49, has had HSV keratitis in his right eye since 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/300, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, given the longstanding nature of the condition, and given the stability of the condition, he can perform adequate, safe operation of a commercial vehicle.” Mr. McEachern reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 84,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Miller, 79, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1971. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion, Mr. Miller has sufficient vision to perform commercial driving tasks.” Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight trucks for 50 years, accumulating 500,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 50 years, accumulating 550,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Morris, 63, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted that, in his medical opinion, Mr. Morris does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Morris reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 4.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Murray, 60, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “I certify that in my medical option [
Mr. Nichols, 49, has amblyopia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion, Mr. Nichols is completely safe to operate a commercial vehicle provided that mirrors are on both the right and left hand sides of the vehicle.” Mr. Nichols reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 728,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Pires, 44, has had strabismic amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “I believe that Mr. Pires is safe to operate any motor vehicle, with normal peripheral vision and good central vision in his dominant eye.” Mr. Pires reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Poindexter, 52, has had a corneal scar in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/250. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Although Mr. Poindexter's corrected acuity is 20/20 OD and 20/250 OS I believe that he has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle as he states that he has operated a commercial vehicle since he was 18 years old and the corneal scar OS is congenital.” Mr. Poindexter reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 171,600 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating 330,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Pusey, 72, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Pusey has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Pusey reported that he has driven straight trucks for 55 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 51 years, accumulating 3.06 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Root, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “I feel that Mr. Root's
Mr. Roskam, 33, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye since 2002. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted that, in his medical opinion, Mr. Roskam does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Roskam reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 16,250 miles. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rupert, 30, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Rupert has sufficient vision to perform the driving task [
Mr. Schad, 64, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion, Mr. Schad has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Schad reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 375,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His driving
Mr. Schroeder, 54, has had a corneal scar and cataract in his left eye since 2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/300. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “I told him to be careful and make sure that the right eye is always seeing well as the left eye does have a deficiency, but I do feel that he would be safe in maintaining his CDL license for commercial driving.” Mr. Schroeder reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 37 years, accumulating 4.44 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Scott, 40, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “It is my opinion that Eric Scott fully meets or exceeds the visual requirements to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.” Mr. Scott reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 70,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 94,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Sharp, 51, has an aphakic right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sharp reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Showalter, 62, has retinal damage and a macular scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1985. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “This letter certifies that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle as he has been doing for over 25 years.” Mr. Showalter reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 32 years, accumulating 2.24 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was not cited, and two convictions for moving violations in a CMV; one conviction was for exceeding the speed limit by 10 to 25 mph; the other conviction was for failure to hold a valid CDL while operating a CMV.
Mr. Singleton, 63, has had ocular histoplasmosis with a macular scar in his right eye since 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my opinion he has sufficient vision to perform the driving test required to drive a commercial vehicle given the fact that his vision is 20/20- [
Mr. Theres, 36, has had nystagmus and albinism in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/160, and in his left eye, 20/32. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my professional opinion as an optometrist, John Theres has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Theres reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Waltz, 37, has had strabismus amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Robert has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Waltz reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Walker, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Mild R Amblyopia [sic] . . . Stable R eye Condition [
Mr. Warshun, 58, has had a nuclear sclerotic cataract in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist noted, “Vision sufficient to drive a commercial vehicle safely.” Mr. Warshun reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 524,160 miles. He holds an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Weerts, 59, has optic nerve damage due to a traumatic incident in 1981. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “Based on the fact that he has had a CDL license for many years, along with this condition, I feel that he is still capable of driving a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Weerts reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wenger, 62, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right
Mr. Wilcox, 45, has had high hyperopia, astigmatism, nystagmus, and alternating exotropia with left-sided fixation preference in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/40. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted, “At this time it is of my medical opinion that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wilcox reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business March 27, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 50 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0012 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 50 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Bailey, 45, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bailey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. By holding a Federal Vision Exemption, Mr. Bailey will be exempt from the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Bakkala, 31, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bakkala understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bakkala meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Barney, 43, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Bogle, 39, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bogle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bogle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Brandt, 50, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brandt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brandt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Brekhus, 43, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brekhus understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brekhus meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Brooks, 23, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brooks understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brooks meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Ms. Carrington, 27, has had ITDM since 1996. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2013 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Carrington understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Carrington meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2013 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Missouri.
Mr. Cavan, 62, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cavan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cavan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Charles, 52, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Charles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Charles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Clardy, 28, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Clardy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clardy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Michigan.
Mr. Davis, 67, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Desmond, 23, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Desmond understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Desmond meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Rhode Island.
Mr. Doeling, 53, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Doeling understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Doeling meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.
Mr. Durler, 27, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Durler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Durler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kansas.
Mr. Edwards, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Edwards understands
Mr. Fedorchak, 46, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fedorchak understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fedorchak meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Felix, 61, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Felix understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Felix meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffer's license from Indiana.
Mr. Frazier, 58, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Frazier understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Frazier meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Gallagher, 72, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gallagher understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Haugen, 27, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Haugen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Haugen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Hazek, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hazek understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hazek meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Hinkhouse, 58, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hinkhouse understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hinkhouse meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Isherwood, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Isherwood understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Isherwood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maine.
Mr. Ivey, 60, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ivey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ivey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Washington.
Mr. Johansen, 39, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johansen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johansen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Utah.
Mr. Krummenacker, 53, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Krummenacker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Krummenacker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from New York.
Mr. Lagunas, 39, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lagunas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lagunas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona.
Mr. Lane, 48, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lane understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lane meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Luebke, 42, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Luebke understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Luebke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Maguire, 39, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maguire understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maguire meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Martin, 35, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Martin, 21, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
Mr. May, 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. May understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. May meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Millard, 56, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Millard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Millard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Morales, 37, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morales understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morales meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Morrison, 28, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morrison understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morrison meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Odo, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Odo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Odo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Pavlovich, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pavlovich understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pavlovich meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Peppers, 47, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Peppers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Peppers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Pletcher, 31, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pletcher understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pletcher meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Pollard, 57, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the
Mr. Rose, 37, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rose understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rose meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Runyon, 39, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2014 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Runyon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Runyon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2014 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma.
Mr. Schroeder, 55, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schroeder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schroeder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.
Ms. Schultz, 66, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2013 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Schultz understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Schultz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2013 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Sopko, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sopko understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sopko meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.
Mr. Stookey, 71, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stookey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stookey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Verdon, 49, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Verdon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Verdon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wiery, 42, has had ITDM since 1978. His endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wiery understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wiery meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 21 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective March 2, 2014. Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2009–0291], using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 21 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 21 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 21 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 77 FR 10604). Each of these 21 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by March 27, 2014.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 21 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, To submit your comment online, go to
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is publishing this notice to announce the availability for review of an Environmental Assessment for a special permit request we have received from Fairbanks Natural Gas, LLC (FNG) for a facility in Fairbanks, Alaska. FNG is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comments on the Environmental Assessment, including comments on any safety or environmental impacts. The Environmental Assessment is available for review at
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by March 27, 2014.
Comments should reference the docket number for the specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
On July 2, 2013, PHMSA received a request from FNG seeking relief from 49 CFR 193.2155 for its construction of a 125,000 barrel liquid natural gas single containment storage tank at its existing storage and vaporization facility at 2942 Tria Road in Fairbanks, Alaska. The request included a technical analysis provided by the operator and was filed at
To further evaluate the special permit request, PHMSA is publishing this notice to announce the availability of an Environmental Assessment prepared for the special permit area noted in FNG's request. Please include any comments on potential environmental impacts that may result if this special permit is granted. Before acting on this special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments will be evaluated after this date if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a request.
49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The President's Advisory Council on Financial Capability for Young Americans (Council) will convene for an open meeting on March 10, 2014, at the Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC, beginning at 9:00 a.m. EST. The meeting will be open to the public. The Council will: (1) Receive a report from the Executive Director on the recommendations of the predecessor President's Advisory Council on Financial Capability and the Financial Literacy and Education Commission; (2) discuss proposed subcommittees and council agenda. Time will be allotted for members of the public, who may make up to one (1) minute of comments before
The meeting will be held on March 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Email:
Send paper statements to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Consumer Policy, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC, 20220.
In general, the Department will make all statements available in their original format, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers, for public inspection and photocopying in the Department's library located at Treasury Department Annex, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC, 20220. The library is open on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. You can make an appointment to inspect statements by calling (202) 622–0990. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available.
Louisa Quittman, Director, Financial Education, Office of Consumer Policy, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC, 20220, at (202) 622–5770 or
On June 25, 2013, the President signed Executive Order 13646, creating the Council to help build the financial capability of young people from an early age, in schools, communities and the workplace. Understanding financial matters and making informed financial decisions help contribute to financial stability. The Council is composed of two
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau; Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.
We must receive your written comments on or before April 28, 2014.
Please note that TTB has adopted a new method for receiving public comments on its information collections. As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document that you wish to comment upon. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB–2014–0002 at
Mary A. Wood, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden 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 the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 4 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2013 Revision, published July 1, 2013, at 78 FR 39440.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850.
Notice is hereby given that Bond Safegaurd Insurance Company (NAIC# 27081) has redomesticated from the state of Illinois to the state of South Dakota effective December 9, 2013. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2013 Revision, to reflect this change.
With respect to any bonds currently in force with this company, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from this company and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 2 individuals and 2 entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the 2 individuals and 2 entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on February 19, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On February 19, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the 2 individuals and 2 entities listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 8 individuals and 5 entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the 8 individuals and 5 entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on February 19, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On February 19, 2014, the Director of OFAC designated the following 8 individuals and 5 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. RODRIGUEZ VASQUEZ, Fernain (a.k.a. CARRILLO, Abel); DOB 08 Jan 1972; POB Valparaiso, Caqueta, Colombia; Cedula No. 16191270 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. CASANOVA ORDONEZ, Hermes Alirio; DOB 02 Oct 1973; POB Policarpa, Narino, Colombia; Cedula No. 98390155 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
3. MONJE ALVARADO, Jonh Eduarth; DOB 09 May 1969; POB Caqueta, Florencia, Colombia; Cedula No. 1673727 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AGRO NEGOCIOS SAJE LTDA.).
4. SABAGH CAJELI, Romez Jose (a.k.a. SABAGH, Ramzi); DOB 04 Jun 1960; POB El Carmen de Bolivar, Bolivar, Colombia; Cedula No. 17848240 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ALMACEN SONIPAL).
5. QUINTERO CABALLERO, Luis Ramiro, Carrera 56 No. 81–98, Apt. 9B, Edificio Galery El Golf, Barranquilla, Colombia; Carrera 52B 100–240, Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 23 Jan 1980; POB Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia; Cedula No. 7604133 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INTERNACIONAL MONEY SERVICIO LTDA.; Linked To: INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES EL CAIRO LTDA.; Linked To: EL KAIRO INTERNACIONAL SAS).
6. CUELLAR CASTRO, Luis Eduardo; DOB 18 Jun 1972; POB Valparaiso, Caqueta, Colombia; Cedula No. 12257081 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
7. VILLOTA SEGURA, Aldemar; DOB 03 Nov 1979; POB Policarpa, Narino, Colombia; Cedula No. 98367490 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
8. VILLOTA SEGURA, Segundo Alberto; DOB 22 Apr 1975; POB Policarpa, Narino, Colombia; Cedula No. 97445691 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
1. ALMACEN SONIPAL, Carrera 10 No. 12–20, Maicao, Guajira, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 0004638 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
2. INTERNACIONAL MONEY SERVICIO LTDA., Calle 76 No. 48–30, Barranquilla, Colombia; Carrera 15 No. 93–60 Local 1–21, Bogota, Colombia; Cra. 15 No. 119–59, Int. 308, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 8301427473 (Colombia); alt. NIT # 9003766996 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
3. INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES EL CAIRO LTDA., Calle 76 No. 48–30, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802013384–9 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
4. AGRO NEGOCIOS SAJE LTDA., Carrera 15A No. 121–12, Ofc. 504, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 9002933274 (Colombia); Matricula Mercantil No 1903808 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
5. EL KAIRO INTERNACIONAL SAS, Carrera 15 No. 93–60 Local 1–21, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 900376699–6 (Colombia); Matricula Mercantil No 02018260 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 2 individuals and 1 entity whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers”. In addition, OFAC is publishing an amendment to the identifying information of one individual previously designated pursuant to Executive Order 12978.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the two individuals and one entity identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on February 19, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202)622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On February 19, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the individuals and entity listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. RODRIGUEZ ARBELAEZ, Juan Miguel, Avenida del Lago Calle Cocli Casa 19 Ciudad Jardin, Cali, Colombia; c/o CREDIREBAJA S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES ARA LTDA., Cali, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES RODRIGUEZ ARBELAEZ Y CIA. S.C.S., Cali, Colombia; c/o M. RODRIGUEZ O. Y CIA. S.C.S., Cali, Colombia; c/o VALORES MOBILIARIOS DE OCCIDENTE S.A., Cali, Colombia; c/o ASISTENCIA PROFESIONAL ESPECIALIZADA EN COLOMBIA LIMITADA, Cali, Colombia; c/o BONOMERCAD S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DECAFARMA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DROCARD S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o FUNDASER, Cali, Colombia; c/o INCOMMERCE S.A., Cali, Colombia; DOB 19 Nov 1976; Cedula No. 94491335 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
2. RESTREPO ENCIZO, Luz Piedad, c/o GRANJA PORCICOLA LA FORTALEZA, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; c/o MOTEL MOMENTOS E.U., Cartago, Valle, Colombia; Calle 17 Bis. 2N–74, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; DOB 27 Dec 1975; POB Sevilla, Valle, Colombia; Cedula No. 31423447 (Colombia); Passport AH411251 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
1. GRANJA PORCICOLA LA FORTALEZA, Carrera 22 No. 8–71, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; Vda. La Hondura, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; NIT # 31423447–7 (Colombia) [SDNT].
In addition, OFAC amended the identifying information for the following individual previously designated pursuant to Executive Order 12978:
1. SANCHEZ RUA, Rafael Angel, c/o ALMACEN Y COMPRAVENTA LOS 3 OROS, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; c/o GRANJA PORCICOLA LA FORTALEZA, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; c/o MOTEL MOMENTOS E.U., Cartago, Valle, Colombia; Calle 17 Bis. No. 2N–74, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; Finca El Encanto, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Fortaleza, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Perlita, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Quichita, Anserma, Colombia; Finca Quiebra de Italia, Anserma, Colombia; DOB 22 Aug 1966; POB Ansermanuevo, Valle, Colombia; Cedula No. 16219873 (Colombia); Passport AF866705 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
The listing for the individual now appears as follows:
1. SANCHEZ RUA, Rafael Angel, Calle 17 Bis. No. 2N–74, Cartago, Valle, Colombia; Finca El Encanto, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Fortaleza, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Perlita, Anserma, Colombia; Finca La Quichita, Anserma, Colombia; Finca Quiebra de Italia, Anserma, Colombia; DOB 22 Aug 1966; POB Ansermanuevo, Valle, Colombia; Cedula No. 16219873 (Colombia); Passport AF866705 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT] (Linked To: MOTEL MOMENTOS E.U.; Linked To: ALMACEN Y COMPRAVENTA LOS 3 OROS).
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 individual taxpayers: Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and Schedules A, B, C, C–EZ, D, E, EIC, F, H, J, R, and SE; Form 1040A; Form 1040EZ; Form 1040NR; Form 1040NR–EZ; Form 1040X; and all attachments to these forms (see the Appendix to this notice).
Written comments should be received on or before April 28, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to The OMB Unit, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Under the PRA, OMB assigns a control number to each “collection of information” that it reviews and approves for use by an agency. The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the burden for each collection of information. Burden estimates for each control number are displayed in (1) PRA notices that accompany collections of information, (2)
The Individual Taxpayer Burden Model (ITBM) estimates burden experienced by individual taxpayers when complying with Federal tax laws and incorporates results from a survey of tax year 2011 individual taxpayers,
Burden is defined as the time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by taxpayers in complying with the Federal tax system and are estimated separately. Out-of-pocket costs include any expenses incurred by taxpayers to prepare and submit their tax returns. Examples include tax return preparation fees, the purchase price of tax preparation software, submission fees, photocopying costs, postage, and phone calls (if not toll-free).
The methodology distinguishes among preparation method, taxpayer activities, taxpayer type, filing method, and income level. Indicators of tax law and administrative complexity, as reflected in the tax forms and instructions, are incorporated into the model.
Preparation methods reflected in the model are as follows:
• Self-prepared without software,
• Self-prepared with software, and
• Use of a paid preparer or tax professional.
Types of taxpayer activities reflected in the model are as follows:
• Recordkeeping,
• Tax planning,
• Gathering tax materials,
• Use of services (IRS and other),
• Form completion, and
• Form submission.
Summary level results using this methodology are presented in Table 1 below. The data shown are the best forward-looking estimates available for income tax returns filed for tax year 2013
Table 1 shows burden estimates based on current statutory requirements as of November 21, 2013 for taxpayers filing a 2013 Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ tax return. Time spent and out-of-pocket costs are presented separately. Time burden is broken out by taxpayer activity, with record keeping representing the largest component. Out-of-pocket costs include any expenses incurred by taxpayers to prepare and submit their tax returns. Examples include tax return preparation and submission fees, postage and photocopying costs, and tax preparation software costs. While these estimates do not include burden associated with post-filing activities, IRS operational data indicate that electronically prepared and filed returns have fewer arithmetic errors, implying lower post-filing burden.
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. For instance, the estimated average time burden for all taxpayers filing a Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ is 12 hours, with an average cost of $210 per return. This average includes all associated forms and schedules, across all preparation methods and taxpayer activities. The average burden for taxpayers filing Form 1040 is about 15 hours and $280; the average burden for taxpayers filing Form 1040A is about 7 hours and $90; and the average for Form 1040EZ filers is about 4 hours and $30.
Within each of these estimates there is significant variation in taxpayer activity. For example, non-business taxpayers are expected to have an average burden of about 7 hours and $120, while business taxpayers are expected to have an average burden of about 24 hours and $430. Similarly, tax preparation fees and other out-of-pocket costs vary extensively depending on the tax situation of the taxpayer, the type of software or professional preparer used, and the geographic location.
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.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a Notice of Funding Availability in the
John Kuhn, Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Office, National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, 4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 201, Philadelphia, PA 19104; (877) 737–0111 (this is a toll-free number);
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate disability claims involving neurological disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The proposed revisions reflect our program experience; advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating neurological disorders; comments we received from medical experts and the public at an outreach policy conference; and responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than April 28, 2014.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA–2006–0140 so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
CAUTION: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 965–1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1–800–772–1213, or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We propose to:
• Change the name of the body system from
• Revise and expand the introductory text to the neurological disorders body system for both adults (section 11.00) and children (section 111.00);
• Add criteria to the adult and the childhood listings to evaluate the effects of neurological disorders;
• Add criteria to the adult listings based on functional limitations associated with neurological disorders; and
• Make conforming changes in the mental disorders body system in sections 12.00 and 112.00.
We propose these revisions to reflect our program experience and advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating neurological disorders. We last published final rules making comprehensive revisions to section 11.00—the neurological listings for adults (people who are at least 18 years old)—and section 111.00—the neurological listings for children (people under age 18)—on December 6, 1985.
In developing these proposed rules, we considered the public comments we received in response to an ANPRM that we published in the
We also used information from other sources, including:
• Medical experts in the field of neurology and other related fields, advocacy groups for people with neurological disorders, and people with neurological disorders and their families;
• People who make and review disability determinations and decisions for us in state agencies, in our Office of Quality Performance, and in our Office of Disability Adjudication and Review; and
• The published sources we list in the References section at the end of this preamble.
We describe in more detail below the revisions we propose to make to the introductory text of the adult listings, the adult listings, the introductory text of the childhood listings, and the childhood listings.
We propose to change the name of this body system from Neurological to Neurological Disorders to make it consistent with our naming of other body systems. We have been renaming all of the other body systems to include the word “disorders” as we revise them, and the name change we are proposing in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is consistent with that approach.
We propose to expand, revise, and clarify the introductory text to the listings to provide more guidance for our adjudicators, to update it, and to reflect the revised listings. The following chart shows the headings of the current and proposed sections of the introductory text:
The following is a detailed explanation of the proposed changes to the introductory text:
In this new section, we explain which neurological disorders we evaluate under these listings and how we evaluate their effects.
In this new section, we describe the kinds of information that we use to establish the existence and severity of your neurological disorder. We also clarify our policy that we will not purchase imaging or laboratory tests that are complex, costly, or invasive.
We define the phrase “despite adherence to prescribed treatment” that is in proposed listings 11.02 Epilepsy, 11.06 Parkinsonian syndrome, and 11.12 Myasthenia gravis. Medical research shows that these neurological conditions may improve after a period of treatment. This criterion is used for conditions that do not improve despite a regular regimen of medication or other treatment that has been prescribed by a physician for 3 consecutive months.
In this new section, we define the phrase “disorganization of motor function”. In proposed 11.00D2, we explain the addition of a severity standard for disorganized motor function, which we refer to as “extreme limitation.” We propose to define an extreme limitation as the inability to stand up from a seated position, or the inability to maintain balance in a standing position and while walking, or the inability to use your upper extremities. We then explain what each of these limitations means.
In this section, we propose to provide guidance about how to document communication impairments associated with neurological disorders evaluated under listings 11.04A, 11.07C, and 11.11B. We also explain that communication impairments caused by non-neurological disorders be evaluated under listing 2.09 in the special senses and speech body system.
Although we do not propose to revise the requirements for evaluating communication impairments that are currently in listings 11.04A, 11.07C, and 11.11B, we propose to define the terms “ineffective speech or communication” and “significant interference” in 11.00E1 and 11.00E2. Guidance for evaluating speech and language impairments will be addressed in future regulations, as discussed in ANPRMs published in the
In this new section, we propose criteria for evaluating bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction and explain what characterizes it.
We propose new functional criteria for evaluating neurological disorders in all listings except proposed 11.20, coma and persistent vegetative state (PVS). These criteria would give adjudicators another way to evaluate neurological disorders. A person must have marked limitation in physical functioning and marked limitation in at least one of three broad areas of functioning: Activities of daily living; maintaining social functioning; or completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace. We explain each part of this listing in detail in proposed 11.00G.
In proposed 11.00G2, we use essentially the same definition of “marked” as in 14.00I5, but we would not include the description of “marked” as “more than moderate but less than extreme.” Instead, we include an explanation based on the language describing the rating scale for mental disorders in current §§ 404.1520a(c)(4) and 416.920a(c)(4). This rating scale describes “marked” as the fourth point on a five-point rating scale. We explain that we would not require our adjudicators to use such a scale, but that “marked” would be the fourth point on a scale of “no limitation, mild limitation, moderate limitation, marked limitation, and extreme limitation.” With this guideline, we would not need to state that “marked” falls between “moderate” and “extreme.”
In proposed 11.00G3, we explain what we mean by “physical functioning,” “activities of daily living,” “social functioning,” and “completing tasks in a timely manner.” We based this proposed section, in part, on current 14.00I6, 14.00I7, and 14.00I8 in our immune system disorders listings.
In proposed 11.00H1, we define epilepsy and acknowledge the various types. We include information about evaluating the most severe types of epilepsy, generalized tonic-clonic and dyscognitive seizures (formerly complex partial seizures), and dyscognitive seizures that may develop into generalized tonic-clonic seizures. In proposed 11.00H2, we clarify the requirement for a detailed description of seizures.
In proposed 11.00H3, we explain that we no longer require serum drug levels and we will therefore not purchase them. When we last revised the listings in 1985, blood drug levels were strong indicators for prescribed treatment compliance because therapeutic ranges had been established for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and the ranges were often noted on laboratory results. Many newer AEDs do not have established therapeutic levels, which makes lab results difficult for our adjudicators to interpret. We believe that removing the requirement for obtaining blood drug levels for adjudicative purposes address this issue and simplify evaluation of seizures that satisfy the listing criteria. We continue to consider blood drug levels available in the evidence in the context of all evidence in the case record.
We propose 11.00H4 in response to requests from our adjudicators for guidance about how to count seizures to satisfy the listing requirements. In proposed 11.00H5, we clarify our longstanding policy that we will not purchase electroencephalography (EEG) and explain when we use EEG test results in making a disability determination or decision.
In proposed 11.00I1, we describe vascular insult to the brain. In proposed 11.00I3, we clarify the 3-month requirement for evaluating disorganization of motor function in combination with functional limitations resulting from a vascular insult.
In proposed 11.00J, we describe benign brain tumors and explain that we evaluate them under the proposed criteria of disorganized motor functioning, oral communication, or a combination of functional limitations.
In proposed 11.00K, we describe Parkinsonian syndrome and explain that we evaluate this disorder using our requirement for adherence to prescribed treatment.
In proposed 11.00L, we describe cerebral palsy (CP) and the various signs and symptoms of the disorder. We explain how we consider the signs and symptoms of this disorder when we decide a claim.
In this proposed 11.00M, we define spinal cord insults and describe their signs and symptoms. We describe spinal cord insults with complete loss of function of the affected part(s) of the body in proposed 11.00M2, and spinal cord insults with less than complete loss of function of the affected part(s) of the body in proposed 11.00M3. In proposed 11.00M4, we clarify the 3-month requirement for evaluating disorganization of motor function resulting from spinal cord insults.
We propose to expand guidance to our adjudicators on evaluating multiple sclerosis (MS) by explaining that the disorder affects several aspects of functioning. In proposed 11.00N2, we explain how we evaluate the effects of MS using proposed criteria for disorganization of motor functioning or a combination of functional limitations.
We explain that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is one type of motor neuron disorder, and we describe our documentation requirements for it. We propose to remove some of the discussion about ALS that is currently in 11.00G. Based on our program experience, we no longer need this guidance on evaluating ALS.
We propose to list examples of the types of disorders we evaluate under 11.17. We explain the instances in which we evaluate these disorders under the mental body disorders system (12.00).
In proposed 11.00Q1, we define traumatic brain injury (TBI) and explain that we evaluate an injury that results in coma or PVS under proposed listing 11.20. In proposed 11.00Q2, we clarify the 3-month requirement for evaluating disorganization of motor function and a combination of functional limitations resulting from a TBI.
In this new section, we explain the differences between coma and PVS. We also describe the common symptoms and signs of these conditions.
In this new section, we provide a general explanation of these disorders and explain how we evaluate them.
In this new section, we propose to expand our guidance on how to consider fatigue so that it applies to more neurological disorders. We explain how we evaluate the intensity, persistence, and effects of fatigue. We also provide general guidance for all neurological disorders that may cause or be associated with fatigue, including multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, and myasthenia gravis. In response to the ANPRM comments, we explain how we evaluate the effects of both physical fatigue and mental fatigue.
In this new section, we propose to provide guidance on how to evaluate neurological disorders that do not meet the proposed listings. We explain the steps in our evaluation process that we use in determining whether your disorder is disabling when it does not meet one of the listings.
We propose to revise the headings of eight listings, remove two listings, add two listings, and replace reference listings with appropriate criteria to evaluate neurological disorders, except in situations when the neurological disorder has resulted in a communication impairment. The following chart provides a comparison of the current adult listings and the proposed adult listings.
We propose to use the following criteria, as appropriate, to establish the severity of a person's neurological disorder: Disorganization of motor function, bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction, and a combination of functional limitations. We describe the three criteria below.
We propose to use the criterion
We propose to use the criterion
We propose to use the criterion
We describe the significant changes to the neurological listings for adults below, following the order of the proposed listings.
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.02,
We propose to revise the current epilepsy listing criteria requirement for seizures to occur more frequently than once a month by requiring generalized tonic-clonic seizures to occur at least once a month for at least 3 consecutive months despite adherence to prescribed treatment. We also revise the current epilepsy listing criteria requirement for seizures to occur more frequently than once a week by requiring dyscognitive seizures to occur at least once a week for at least 3 consecutive months despite adherence to prescribed treatment. We also propose new criteria for generalized tonic-clonic seizures and for dyscognitive seizures that occur less frequently in combination with functional criteria.
In order to simplify and clarify our frequency of seizure requirement, we provide guidance in proposed 11.00H4 on how to count seizures to satisfy the proposed listing criteria.
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.04,
We propose to add the general criteria described above for evaluating disorganization of motor function and a combination of functional limitations. We remove references to current listings 11.02, 11.03, and 11.04.
We propose to add a criterion for adherence to prescribed treatment. Medical research shows that Parkinsonian syndrome may be responsive to treatment. We believe that a specific period of time needs to pass during which you are adhering to prescribed treatment before considering the severity of the condition.
We propose to remove the current intelligence quotient (IQ) score criterion because advances in medical knowledge of cerebral palsy and our program experience indicate that an IQ score does not provide us the best measure of a person's cognitive limitations and may not indicate listing-level severity.
We propose to update the remaining criteria by replacing them with the general criteria described above for evaluating disorganization of motor function and a combination of functional limitations.
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.08,
We add the general criteria described above for evaluating a combination of functional limitations, and we remove the reference to current listing 11.04.
We propose to replace the disorganization of motor function criteria in current 11.09 with the proposed disorganization of motor function criteria. Under the proposed listing, we assess the severity of a visual or mental impairment related to multiple sclerosis using the proposed combination of functional limitations criteria or under a special senses and speech listing in 2.00, or under a mental disorders listing in 12.00, respectively. We also replace the requirement for significant reproducible fatigue with the general criteria described above for evaluating disorganization of motor function and a combination of functional limitations.
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.11,
We propose to update the current listing criteria for significant difficulty with speaking, swallowing, or breathing by replacing it with the general criteria described above for evaluating bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction. We also add the general criteria described above for a combination of functional limitations. Our program experience shows that it is difficult to evaluate motor weakness under the current listing. We propose to clarify the criteria for evaluating motor weakness by using the general criteria described above for evaluating disorganization of motor function.
We propose to add a criterion for adherence to prescribed treatment. We believe that a specific period of time needs to pass during which you are adhering to prescribed treatment before
We replace the current criteria for bulbar dysfunction and significant motor weakness of muscles of extremities with the proposed bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction criteria in proposed 11.12.
We propose to add the general criteria described above for evaluating disorganization of motor function and a combination of functional limitations. We remove references to current listing 11.04B.
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.14,
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.17,
We propose to revise the heading of current 11.18,
In response to questions from our adjudicators, we propose to add 11.20,
We propose to add 11.22
We propose to remove current 11.16,
The proposed childhood introductory text and listings are similar to the proposed adult rules and only have minor differences, such as referring to children instead of adults.
To clarify the guidance that we provide on evaluating communication disorders in children, we propose to provide definitions and severity criteria for the terms “significantly affects” and “ineffective verbal communication” in 111.00K.
We are not proposing to include criteria for evaluating a combination of functional limitations in the childhood listings because we already evaluate functioning in children using the rules for determining the functional equivalence of an impairment(s) to the listings.
We propose to remove one childhood listing and revise the heading of another. We propose to add nine childhood listings to parallel the adult listings because many neurological disorders that affect adults also affect children. We are not proposing corresponding childhood listings to proposed adult listings 11.06 for Parkinsonian syndrome, 11.10 for Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and 11.11 for Post-polio syndrome because these disorders rarely occur in children. When these disorders do occur in children, we evaluate them under the adult listings, when appropriate, or determine whether they functionally equal the listings. Although we are proposing corresponding childhood listings to most of the proposed adult listings, we propose to add a childhood Multiple Sclerosis listing, 111.21, and maintain current childhood neurological communication listing, 111.09, as is. We are also proposing to remove the current intelligence quotient (IQ) score criterion in listing 111.02 and 111.08 because advances in medical knowledge of epilepsy and spinal cord insults, and our program experience indicate that an IQ score does not provide us the best measure of a child's cognitive limitations and may not indicate listing-level severity
The following chart provides a comparison of the current childhood listings and the proposed childhood listings.
Current 111.06 lists the criteria we use to evaluate motor dysfunction due to any neurological disorder in children. We propose to remove current 111.06 because we include disorganization of motor function criteria in each of the proposed childhood neurological listings, as appropriate.
We propose to revise the heading of current 111.08,
We propose minor conforming changes to the musculoskeletal system listings (1.00).
We are requesting information regarding how we could consider genetic testing and/or analysis to document, identify, and evaluate specific medically determinable neurological disorder(s).
Under our current, long-standing policy, we do not require or purchase genetic testing to evaluate disability; however, we do consider all evidence in the record, including genetic testing, when we make a determination or decision of whether you are disabled (See, §§ 404.1520 and 416.920).
Under the Act, we have full power and authority to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to carry out such provisions. Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1).
If we publish these proposed rules as final rules, they would remain in effect for 5 years after the date they become effective, unless we extend them, or revise and issue them again.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?
• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rules easier to understand, such as grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing?
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this NPRM meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
We certify that this NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would affect individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This NPRM does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
We consulted the following references when we developed these proposed rules:
We will make these references available to you for inspection if you are interested in reading them. Please make arrangements with the contact person shown in this preamble if you would like to review any reference materials.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR part 404, subpart P as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 205(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)–(b) and (d)–(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108–203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
12. Neurological Disorders (11.00 and 111.00): [DATE 5 YEARS FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULES].
K.
A.
B.
1. We need medical evidence to assess the effects of your neurological disorder. Medical evidence should include your medical history, examination findings, relevant laboratory tests, and the results of imaging. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray, computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electroencephalography (EEG). The imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support the evaluation of the disorder. In addition, the medical evidence may include descriptions of any prescribed treatment and your response to it. We consider statements you or others make about your impairments, your restrictions, your daily activities, or your efforts to work.
2. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of your laboratory and imaging evidence. We will not purchase imaging or laboratory tests that are complex, costly, or invasive.
C.
D.
1.
• Stand up; or
• Balance; or
• Walk; or
• Use arms, hands, and fingers to perform fine and gross motor movements.
2.
a. Inability to stand up from a seated position means that once seated you are unable to stand and maintain an upright position without the assistance of another person or the use of an assistive device, such as a walker, a crutch, or a cane.
b. Inability to maintain balance in a standing position means that you are unable to maintain an upright position while standing or walking without the assistance of another person or an assistive device, such as a walker, two crutches, or two canes.
c. Inability to use your upper extremities means that you have an extreme loss of function of both upper extremities that interferes very seriously with your ability to perform fine and gross motor movements. Inability to perform fine and gross motor
3. We will find you disabled under these listings if you have disorganization of motor function that limits both lower extremities, or both upper extremities, or the trunk and one upper or lower extremity, or one upper extremity and one lower extremity. Examples of extreme limitation that meet this criterion include, but are not limited to, very serious limitation in the ability to:
a. Stand upright without the risk of falling;
b. Balance in a seated position without the risk of falling;
c. Walk without the assistance of a device or person without the risk of falling; and
d. Use your fingers, hands, and arms to manipulate, grasp, lift, and carry objects.
E.
1. Under 11.04A, we need evidence documenting that your central nervous system vascular accident or insult (CVA) and sensory or motor aphasia have resulted in ineffective speech or communication.
2. Under 11.07C, we need evidence documenting that your cerebral palsy has resulted in significant interference in your ability to speak, hear, or see.
3. Under 11.11B, we need evidence documenting that your post-polio syndrome has resulted in the inability to produce intelligible speech.
F.
G.
1. We consider all relevant information in your case record to determine the effects of your neurological disorder on your ability to function in these four areas: Physical functioning, activities of daily living, social functioning, and completing tasks in a timely manner. To satisfy the combination of functional limitations requirement in these listings, your neurological disorder must result marked limitation in physical functioning and in at least one of three broad areas of functioning: Activities of daily living; maintaining social functioning; or completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace.
2. Marked limitation means that the signs and symptoms of your neurological disorder interfere seriously with your ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis in work-related activities.
a. Although we do not require the use of such a scale, marked would be the fourth point on a five-point rating scale consisting of no limitation, slight limitation, moderate limitation, marked limitation, and extreme limitation.
b. We do not define marked in terms of specific physical functions, or a specific number of different activities of daily living, or different behaviors in which your social functioning is impaired, or a specific number of tasks that you are able to complete, but by the nature and overall degree of interference with your functioning.
c. Marked limitation also reflects the kind and extent of help you receive and the characteristics of any special supports that may reduce your symptoms and signs and enable you to function as you do. Examples include help you receive from other people, special appliances or equipment, assistive devices, or medications that enable you to function. The more extensive the help or supports that you need to function, the more limited we will find you to be.
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
a. We will consider your symptoms and signs and how they affect your ability to function in work-related activities. When we evaluate your functioning, we will consider whether
b. We will consider the effectiveness of treatment in improving the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings related to your neurological disorder, as well as any aspects of treatment that may interfere with your ability to function. We will consider, for example: the effects of medications you take (including side effects); the time-limited efficacy of some medications; the intrusiveness, complexity, and duration of your treatment (for example, the dosing schedule, need for injections); the effects of treatment, including medications, therapy, and surgery, on your functioning; the variability of your response to treatment; and any drug interactions.
H.
1.
a.
b.
2. We require at least one detailed description of your seizures from someone, preferably a medical professional, who has observed at least one of your typical seizures. If you experience more than one type of seizure, we require a description of each type.
3.
4.
a. Count multiple seizures occurring in a 24-hour period as one seizure.
b. Count status epilepticus (a continuous series of seizures without return to consciousness between seizures) as one seizure.
c. Count a dyscognitive seizure that progresses into a generalized tonic-clonic seizure as one generalized tonic-clonic seizure.
d. We do not count seizures that occur during a period when you are not adhering to prescribed treatment without good reason. When we determine that you had good reason for not adhering to prescribed treatment, we will consider your physical, mental, educational, and communicative limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language). We will consider you to have good reason for not following prescribed treatment if the treatment is very risky for you due to its magnitude or unusual nature, or if you are unable to afford prescribed treatment that you are willing to accept, but for which no free community resources are available. We will not follow guidelines in our policy that are not relevant to the number of seizures that you experience. For example, we will not consider amputation of an extremity or cataract surgery in one eye when there is a severe visual impairment not expected to improve with treatment in the other eye to be good reasons to not follow prescribed treatment for your seizures. We will follow guidelines found in our policy, such as §§ 404.1530(c) and 416.930(c) of this chapter, when we determine whether you have a good reason for not adhering to prescribed treatment.
5.
I.
1.
2. We need evidence of sensory or motor aphasia that results in ineffective speech or communication under 11.04A. (See 11.00E). We may evaluate your communication impairment under the functional criteria under listing 11.04C, or under mental listing 12.02.
3. We generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the vascular insult to evaluate your physical limitations under 11.04B or the impact that your disorder has on your functioning under 11.04C. In some cases, evidence of your vascular insult is sufficient to determine disability within 3 months post-vascular insult. If we are unable to determine disability within 3 months after your vascular insult, we will defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence of your neurological disorder at least 3 months post-vascular insult.
J.
K.
L.
1.
2. We evaluate your signs and symptoms, such as ataxia, spasticity, flaccidity, athetosis, chorea, and difficulty with precise movements when we determine your ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements. We will also evaluate your signs, such as dysarthria and apraxia of speech, and receptive and expressive language problems when we determine your ability to communicate. We will consider your other impairments or signs and symptoms that develop secondary to the disorder, such as post-impairment syndrome (a combination of pain, fatigue, and weakness due to muscle abnormalities); overuse syndromes (repetitive motion injuries); arthritis; abnormalities of proprioception (perception of the movements and position of the body); abnormalities of stereognosis (perception and identification of objects by touch); learning problems; anxiety; and depression.
M.
1.
2.
3.
4. When we evaluate your spinal cord insult, we generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the spinal cord insult to evaluate your disorganization of motor function. In some cases, evidence of your spinal cord insult may be sufficient to determine disability within 3 months after the spinal cord insult.
N.
1.
2. We evaluate your signs and symptoms, such as flaccidity, spasticity, spasms, in-coordination, imbalance, tremor, physical fatigue, muscle weakness, dizziness, tingling, and numbness when we determine your ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements using your arms, hands, and fingers. We will consider your other impairments or signs and symptoms that develop secondary to the disorder, such as mental fatigue; visual loss; trouble sleeping; impaired attention, concentration, memory, or judgment; mood swings; and depression in determining a combination of functional limitations.
O.
P.
Q.
1.
2. We generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the TBI to evaluate either your physical limitations under 11.18A or the impact that your disorder has on your functioning under 11.18C. In some cases, evidence of your TBI is sufficient to determine disability within 3 months post-TBI. If we are unable to determine disability within 3 months post-TBI, we will defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence of your neurological disorder at least 3 months post-TBI. If a finding of disability still is not possible at that time, we will again defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence at least 6 months after your TBI.
R.
S.
T.
U.
If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See §§ 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal the criteria of a listing, you may or may not have the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity, which we determine at the fourth, and if necessary, the fifth steps of the sequential evaluation process in §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 of this chapter. See also §§ 404.1545, 404.1560, 416.945, and 416.960 of this chapter. We use the rules in §§ 404.1594 and 416.994 of this chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
11.01 Category of Impairments, Neurological Disorders
11.02
A. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (see 11.00H1a), occurring at least once a month for at least 3 consecutive months (see 11.00H4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 11.00C).
B. Dyscognitive seizures (see 11.00H1b), occurring at least once a week for at least 3 consecutive months (see 11.00H4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 11.00C).
C. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (see 11.00H1a), occurring at least once every 2 months for at least 4 consecutive months (see 11.00H4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 11.00C); and marked limitation in one of the following:
1. Physical functioning (see 11.00G3a); or
2. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
3. Maintaining social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
4. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00 G3d).
D. Dyscognitive seizures (see 11.00H1b), occurring at least once every 2 weeks for at least 3 consecutive months (see 11.00H4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 11.00C); and marked limitation in one of the following:
1. Physical functioning (see 11.00G3a); or
2. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
3. Maintaining social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
4. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.03 [Reserved]
11.04
A. Sensory or motor aphasia resulting in ineffective speech or communication (see 11.00E1) persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the insult.
B. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements, persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the insult.
C. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a) and in one of the following areas, both persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the insult:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.05
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.06
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.07
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
C. Significant interference in communication due to speech, hearing, or visual defect (see 11.00E2).
11.08
A. Complete loss of function, as described in 11.00M2, persisting for 3 consecutive months after the insult (see 11.00M4).
B. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements persisting for 3 consecutive months after the insult (see 11.00M4).
C. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a) and in one of the following areas, both persisting for 3 consecutive months after the insult (see 11.00M4):
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.09
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.10
11.11
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Unintelligible speech.
C. Bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction (see 11.00F), resulting in:
1. Acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation; or
2. Need for supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.
D. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.12
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction (see 11.00F), resulting in:
1. One myasthenic crisis requiring mechanical ventilation; or
2. Need for supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.
C. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.13
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.14
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.15 [Reserved]
11.16 [Reserved]
11.17
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.18
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements, persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the injury.
B. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following areas, persisting for at least 3 consecutive months after the injury:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
11.19 [Reserved]
11.20
11.21 [Reserved]
11.22
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 11.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 11.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction (see 11.00F), resulting in:
1. Acute respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; or
2. Need for supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.
C. Marked limitation (see 11.00G2) in physical functioning (see 11.00G3a), and in one of the following:
1. Activities of daily living (see 11.00G3b); or
2. Social functioning (see 11.00G3c); or
3. Completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 11.00G3d).
D.
10.
12.01 Category of Impairments, Mental Disorders
12.09
I. Seizures. Evaluate under 11.02.
111.00 Neurological Disorders.
B.
1.
K.
We evaluate epilepsy, coma or persistent vegetative state, and neurological disorders that cause disorganization of motor function, or bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction.
1. We need medical evidence to assess the effects of your neurological disorder. Medical evidence should include your medical history, examination findings, relevant laboratory tests, and the results of imaging. Imaging refers to medical imaging techniques, such as x-ray, computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electroencephalography (EEG). The imaging must be consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice as the proper technique to support the evaluation of the disorder. In addition, the medical evidence may include descriptions of any prescribed treatment and your response to it. We consider statements you or others make about your impairments, your restrictions, your daily activities, or, if you are an adolescent, your efforts to work.
2. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of your laboratory and imaging evidence. We will not purchase imaging or laboratory tests that are complex, costly, or invasive.
In 111.02 and 111.12, we require that findings occur despite adherence to prescribed treatment. “Despite adherence to prescribed treatment” means that you have taken medication(s) or followed other treatment procedures as prescribed by a physician for 3 consecutive months. You may receive your treatment at a health care facility that you visit regularly, even if you do not see the same physician on each visit.
1.
2.
a. Inability to stand up from a seated position means that once seated you are unable to stand and maintain an upright position without the assistance of another person or an assistive device, such as a walker, a crutch, or a cane.
b. Inability to maintain balance in a standing position means that you are unable to maintain an upright position while standing or walking without the assistance of another person or an assistive device, such as a walker, two crutches, or two canes.
c. Inability to use your upper extremities means that you have an extreme loss of function of both upper extremities that interferes very seriously with your ability to perform fine and gross motor movements. Inability to perform fine and gross motor movements could include inability to feed oneself, inability to pick up small objects, inability to control a pencil or crayon, or inability to throw a ball.
3. We will find you disabled under these listings if you have disorganization of motor function that limits both lower extremities, or both upper extremities, or the trunk and one upper or lower extremity, or one upper extremity and one lower extremity. Examples of extreme limitation that meet this criterion include, but are not limited to, very serious limitation in the ability to:
a. Stand upright without the risk of falling;
b. Balance in a seated position without the risk of falling;
c. Walk without the assistance of a device or person without the risk of falling; and
d. Use your fingers, hands, and arms to manipulate, grasp, lift, and carry objects.
4. For children who are not yet able to balance, stand up, or walk independently, we consider their function based on assessments of limitations in the ability to perform comparable age-appropriate activities with the lower and upper extremities, given normal developmental expectations. For such children, an extreme level of limitation means developmental expectations at no more
Listings 111.12 and 111.22 include criteria for evaluating bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction. Some neuromuscular disorders affect functions of the bulbar region of the brain, which controls vital functions such as breathing, swallowing, and speaking.
1.
a.
b.
c.
2. We require at least one detailed description of your seizures from someone, preferably a medical professional, who has observed at least one of your typical seizures. If you experience more than one type of seizure, we require a description of each type.
3.
4.
a. Count multiple seizures occurring in a 24-hour period as one seizure.
b. Count status epilepticus (a continuous series of seizures without return to consciousness between seizures) as one seizure.
c. Count a dyscognitive seizure that progresses into a generalized tonic-clonic seizure as one generalized tonic-clonic seizure.
d. We do not count seizures that occur during a period when you are not adhering to prescribed treatment without good reason. When we determine that you had a good reason for not adhering to prescribed treatment, we will consider your physical, mental, educational, and communicative limitations (including any lack of facility with the English language). We will consider you to have good reason for not following prescribed treatment if the treatment is very risky for you due to its magnitude or unusual nature, or if you are unable to afford prescribed treatment that you are willing to accept, but for which no free community resources are available. We will not follow guidelines in our policy that are not relevant to the number of seizures that you experience. For example, we will not consider amputation of an extremity or cataract surgery in one eye when there is a severe visual impairment not expected to improve with treatment in the other eye to be good reasons to not follow prescribed treatment for your seizures. We will follow guidelines found in our policy, such as § 416.930(c) of this chapter, when we determine whether you have a good reason for not adhering to prescribed treatment.
5.
1.
2. We generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the vascular insult to evaluate your physical limitations under 111.04. In some cases, evidence of your vascular insult is sufficient to determine disability within 3 months post-vascular insult. If we are unable to determine disability within 3 months after your vascular insult, we will defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence of your neurological disorder at least 3 months post-vascular insult.
Benign brain tumors are noncancerous (nonmalignant) abnormal growths of tissue in or on the brain that invade healthy brain tissue or apply pressure on the brain or cranial nerves. We evaluate their effects on your motor functioning or oral communication. We evaluate malignant brain tumors under the malignant neoplastic diseases body system in 113.00.
1.
2. We evaluate your signs and symptoms, such as ataxia, spasticity, flaccidity, athetosis, chorea, and difficulty with precise movements when we determine your ability to stand up,
1.
2.
3.
4. When we evaluate your spinal cord insult, we generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the spinal cord insult to evaluate your disorganization of motor function. In some cases, evidence of your spinal cord insult may be sufficient to determine disability within 3 months after the spinal cord insult.
Communication impairments result from medically determinable neurological disorders that cause dysfunction in the parts of the brain responsible for speech and language. Under 111.09, we must have a description of a recent comprehensive evaluation including all areas of affective and effective communication, performed by a qualified professional, to document a communication impairment associated with a neurological disorder.
1. Under 111.09A, we need documentation from a qualified professional that your neurological disorder has resulted in a speech deficit which significantly affects your ability to communicate.
2. Under 111.09B, we need documentation from a qualified professional that shows that your neurological disorder has resulted in a comprehension deficit that results in ineffective verbal communication for your age. Ineffective verbal communication means that you demonstrate serious limitation in your ability to communicate orally on the same level as other children of the same age and level of development.
3. Under 111.09C, we need documentation of a neurological disorder that has resulted in hearing loss. Your hearing loss will be evaluated under listing 102.10 or 102.111.
4. We evaluate speech deficits due to non-neurological disorders under 2.09.
Neurodegenerative disorders of the central nervous system are disorders characterized by progressive and irreversible degeneration of neurons or their supporting cells. Over time, these disorders impair many of the body's motor or cognitive and other mental functions. Under 111.17, we consider neurodegenerative disorders of the central nervous system that we do not evaluate elsewhere in section 111.00, such as juvenile onset Huntington disease (HD) and Friedreich ataxia. When these disorders result in solely cognitive and other mental function effects, we will evaluate the disorder under 112.02.
1.
2. We generally need evidence from at least 3 months after the TBI to evaluate your physical limitations under 111.18A. In some cases, evidence of your TBI is sufficient to determine disability within 3 months post-TBI. If we are unable to determine disability within 3 months post-TBI, we will defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence of your neurological disorder at least 3 months post-TBI. If a finding of disability still is not possible at that time, we will again defer adjudication of the claim until we obtain evidence at least 6 months after your TBI.
Coma is a state of unconsciousness in which a child does not exhibit a sleep/wake cycle, and is unable to perceive or respond to external stimuli. Children who do not fully emerge from coma may progress into persistent vegetative state (PVS). PVS is a condition of partial arousal in which a child may have a low level of consciousness but is still unable to react to external stimuli. In contrast to coma, a child in a PVS retains sleep/wake cycles and may exhibit some key lower brain functions, such as spontaneous movement, opening and moving eyes, and grimacing. Coma or PVS may result from TBI, a nontraumatic insult to the brain (such as a vascular insult, infection, or brain tumor), or a neurodegenerative or metabolic disorder.
1.
2. We evaluate your signs and symptoms, such as flaccidity, spasticity, spasms, in-coordination, imbalance, tremor, physical fatigue, muscle weakness, dizziness, tingling, and numbness when we determine your ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor
Motor neuron disorders are progressive neurological disorders that destroy the cells that control voluntary muscle activity, such as walking, breathing, swallowing, and speaking. The most common motor neuron disorders in children are progressive bulbar palsy and spinal muscular dystrophy syndromes. We evaluate the effects of these disorders on motor functioning, bulbar and neuromuscular functioning, or a combination of functional limitations.
Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms of some neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis and myasthenia gravis. These disorders may result in physical fatigue (lack of muscle strength) or mental fatigue (decreased awareness or attention). When we evaluate your fatigue, we will consider the intensity, persistence, and effects of fatigue on your functioning. This may include information such as the clinical and laboratory data and other objective evidence concerning your neurological deficit, a description of fatigue considered characteristic of your disorder, and information about your functioning. We consider the effects of physical fatigue on your ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements using the criteria described in 111.00D.
If your neurological disorder does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must also consider whether your impairment(s) meets the criteria of a listing in another body system.
If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. See §§ 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter. If your impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal a listing, we will consider whether your impairment(s) functionally equals the listings. See §§ 416.924(a) and 416.926(a) of this chapter. We use the rules in § 416.994(a) of this chapter when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
111.01 Category of Impairments, Neurological Disorders
111.02
A. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (see 111.00F1a), occurring at least once a month for at least 3 consecutive months (see 111.00F4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 111.00C).
B. Dyscognitive seizures (see 111.00F1b) or absence seizures (see 111.00F1c), occurring at least once a week for at least 3 consecutive months (see 111.00F4) despite adherence to prescribed treatment (see 111.00C).
111.03 [Reserved]
111.04
111.05
111.06 [Reserved]
111.07
111.08
A. Complete loss of function, as described in 111.00J2, persisting for 3 consecutive months after insult (see 111.00J4).
B. Disorganization of motor function (see 111.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 111.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements persisting for 3 consecutive months after the insult (see 111.00J4).
111.09
A. Documented speech deficit which significantly affects (see 111.00K1) the clarity and content of the speech.
B. Documented comprehension deficit resulting in ineffective verbal communication (see 111.00K2) for age.
C. Impairment of hearing as described under the criteria in 102.10 or 102.11.
111.10 [Reserved]
111.11 [Reserved]
111.12
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 111.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 111.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction (see 111.00E), resulting in:
1. One myasthenic crisis requiring mechanical ventilation; or
2. Need for supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.
111.13
111.14
111.15 [Reserved]
111.16 [Reserved]
111.17
111.18
111.19 [Reserved]
111.20
111.21
111.22
A. Disorganization of motor function (see 111.00D1), resulting in extreme limitation (see 111.00D2) in the ability to stand up, balance, walk, or perform fine and gross motor movements.
B. Bulbar and neuromuscular dysfunction (see 111.00E), resulting in:
1. Acute respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; or
2. Need for supplemental enteral nutrition via a gastrostomy or parenteral nutrition via a central venous catheter.
(a) by December 31, 2016, participating agencies shall have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize the ITDS and supporting systems, such as the Automated Commercial Environment, as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export;
(b) by December 31, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security shall confirm to the Secretary of the Treasury and the ITDS Board of Directors (Board), which serves as the Interagency Steering Committee established under section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, that the ITDS has the operational capabilities to enable users to:
(c) the Board shall, in consultation with ITDS participating agencies, define the standard set of data elements to be collected, stored, and shared in the ITDS; and continue to periodically review those data elements in order to update the standard set of data elements, as necessary;
(d) the Board shall continue to assist the Secretary of the Treasury in overseeing the implementation of, and participation in, the ITDS, including the establishment of the ITDS capabilities and requirements associated with the collection from users and distribution to relevant agencies of standard electronic import and export data; and
(e) the Board shall make publicly available a timeline outlining the development and delivery of the secure ITDS capabilities, as well as agency implementation plans and schedules. Agencies shall take such steps as are necessary to meet the timeline, including timely completion of all appropriate agreements, including memoranda of understanding, and other required documents that establish procedures and guidelines for the secure exchange and safeguarding of data among agencies and, as appropriate, with other Federal Government entities.
(b) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide funding and administrative support for the BIEC, to the extent permitted by law.
(c) In addition to the Chair and Vice Chair, the BIEC shall include designated senior-level representatives from agencies that provide approval before goods can be imported and exported, including the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies with border management interests or authorities, as determined by the Chair and Vice Chair. The BIEC shall also include appropriate representatives from the Executive Office of the President.
(a) develop common risk management principles and methods to inform agency operations associated with the review and release of cargo at the border and encourage compliance with applicable law;
(b) develop policies and processes to orchestrate, improve, and accelerate agency review of electronic trade data transmitted through relevant systems and provide coordinated and streamlined responses back to users to facilitate trade and support and advance compliance with applicable laws and international agreements, including (in coordination with, and as recommendations to, the Board) policies and processes designed to assist the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate, with activities related to the ITDS;
(c) identify opportunities to streamline Federal Government systems and reduce costs through the elimination of redundant capabilities or through enhanced utilization of the Automated Commercial Environment capabilities as a means of improving supply chain management processes;
(d) assess, in collaboration with the Board, the business need, feasibility, and potential benefits of developing or encouraging the private-sector development of web-based interfaces to electronic data systems, including the ITDS, for individuals and small businesses;
(e) engage with and consider the advice of industry and other relevant stakeholders regarding opportunities to improve supply chain management processes, with the goal of promoting economic competitiveness through enhanced trade facilitation and enforcement;
(f) encourage other countries to develop similar single window systems to facilitate the sharing of relevant data, as appropriate, across governmental systems and with trading partners; and
(g) assess, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, opportunities to facilitate electronic payment of duties, taxes, fees, and charges due at importation. The Federal Government endorses electronic payment of duties, taxes, fees, and charges due at importation, and currently allows payment electronically through various systems.
(a) as part of the retrospective review report due to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on July 14, 2014, pursuant to Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), unless directed otherwise through subsequent guidance from OIRA, determine whether any regulations should be modified to achieve the requirements set forth in this order; and
(b) promptly initiate rulemaking proceedings to implement necessary regulatory modifications identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
(b) By July 1, 2014, and every year thereafter until July 2016, the BIEC, in consultation with the Board, shall provide to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a report on the implementation of section 5 of this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.