Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
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
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Justice Programs Office
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
United States Mint
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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010–15–08 for all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. AD 2010–15–08 required repetitive inspections for discrepancies of each carriage spindle of the outboard mid-flaps; repetitive gap checks of the inboard and outboard carriages of the outboard mid-flaps to detect fractured carriage spindles; measuring to ensure that any new or serviceable carriage spindle meets minimum allowable diameter measurements taken at three locations; repetitive inspections, measurements, and overhaul of the carriage spindles; replacement of any carriage spindle when it has reached its maximum life limit; and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires reducing the life limit of the carriages, reducing the repetitive interval for certain inspections and gap checks for certain carriages. This new AD also adds an option, for certain replacements, of doing an inspection, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of failure of both flap carriages. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked, corroded, or fractured carriage spindles, which could lead to severe flap asymmetry, and could result in reduced control or loss of controllability of the airplane.
This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 31, 2010 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010).
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
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6440; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010). AD 2010–15–08 applied to all 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 comments received on the proposal (78 FR 39193, July 1, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested we revise note 1 to paragraph (m) of the NPRM (78 FR 39193, July 1, 2013) to read, “. . . Boeing (737) Standard Overhaul Practices Manual (SOPM), Revision 25 or later.” Boeing stated that as its production standard changes, the SOPM is revised each time the SOPM is updated. Boeing stated that a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is required each time the SOPM is revised and this generates AMOC activity that does not enhance fleet safety.
We disagree to revise Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this final rule because the text in Note 1 is informational guidance and does not relieve the requirement in paragraph (m) to obtain approval for the method used to apply plating, regardless of what revision of the SOPM is specified. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Boeing requested the following requirement in paragraph (m)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 39193, July 1, 2013) be removed, “The carriage must not be plated using any high velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) thermal spray process.” Boeing stated AD 2011–04–10, Amendment 39–16609 (76 FR 9498, February 18, 2011), and AD 2012–13–07, Amendment 39–17109 (77 FR 39153, July 2, 2012), required diligent inspection of HVOF coated carriages. Boeing stated that inspections to date have only found minor corrosion, well in advance of a potential unsafe condition. Boeing stated requiring carriages to be converted to nickel [plating] does not enhance fleet safety.
We disagree to remove the requested phrase. The restriction against future application of HVOF plating of the flap carriages was coordinated and agreed to by The Boeing Company prior to issuance of the NPRM (78 FR 39193, July 1, 2013). Service experience has shown that the HVOF coating has insufficient reliability, therefore the restriction is necessary. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
We agree with APB's statement that the installation of winglets as specified in STC ST01219SE (
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 39193, July 1, 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 39193, July 1, 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 652 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have 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 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 22, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010).
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of failure of both flap carriages. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked, corroded, or fractured carriage spindles, which could lead to severe flap asymmetry, and could result in reduced control or loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information that shortens the compliance times for certain inspections. The tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012; specify the compliance times for paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD. For carriage spindles that have accumulated the number of flight cycles or years in service specified in the “Threshold” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003, accomplish the gap check, nondestructive test (NDT) inspection, and general visual inspection specified in paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD within the corresponding interval after December 4, 2003 (the effective date AD 2003–24–08, Amendment 39–13337 (68 FR 67027, December 1, 2003)), as specified in the “Interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003, except as specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the gap check, NDT, and general visual inspections at the intervals specified in the “Interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003, except as specified in paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, accomplish the gap check, NDT inspection, and general visual inspections specified in paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD within the corresponding interval as specified in the “Interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003, and thereafter at the intervals specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the gap check, NDT, and general visual inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in the “Interval” column of the tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) The gap check does not have to be done at the same time as an NDT inspection; after doing an NDT inspection, the interval for doing the next gap check may be measured from the NDT inspection.
(2) As carriage spindles gain flight cycles or years in service and move from one category in the “Threshold” column to another, they are subject to the repetitive inspection intervals corresponding to the new threshold category.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information. Perform a gap check of the inboard and outboard carriage of the left and right outboard mid-flaps to determine if there is a positive indication of a severed carriage spindle, in accordance with Work Package 2 of paragraph 3.B., “Work Instructions,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information and new optional actions and exception. If there is a positive indication of a severed carriage spindle during the gap check required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, except for carriage spindles on which an ultrasonic inspection has been done in accordance with the “Work Instructions” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012; and the spindle has been confirmed not to be severed, no further actions are required by this paragraph for that carriage spindle.
(1) Remove the carriage spindle and install a new or serviceable carriage spindle, in accordance with the “Work Instructions” of any service bulletin specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(iii), or (i)(1)(iv) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009.
(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011.
(2) Do a detailed inspection of the spindle to determine if there is corrosion, cracking, or a severed spindle, and, before further flight, do all related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the “Work Instructions” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; or Boeing Service
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009.
(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information. Perform an NDT (ultrasonic) inspection and general visual inspection for each carriage spindle of the left and right outboard mid-flaps to detect cracks, corrosion, or severed carriage spindles, in accordance with “Work Package 1” of the “Work Instructions” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information and new optional action. If any corroded, cracked, or severed carriage spindle is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) Remove the carriage spindle and install a new or serviceable carriage spindle, in accordance with any service bulletin identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), or (k)(1)(iv) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009.
(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011.
(2) Do a detailed inspection of the spindle to determine if there is corrosion, cracking, or a severed spindle, in accordance with the “Work Instructions” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012. If any corrosion, cracking, or a severed spindle is found, before further flight, install a new or serviceable carriage spindle, in accordance with any service bulletin identified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), or (k)(1)(iv) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010). Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: As of December 4, 2003 (the effective date AD 2003–24–08, Amendment 39–13337 (68 FR 67027, December 1, 2003)), no person may install on any airplane a carriage spindle that has been removed as required by paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD, unless it has been overhauled in accordance with the “Work Instructions” of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), or (l)(4) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011; may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph. To be eligible for installation under this paragraph, the carriage spindle must have been overhauled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012.
(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009.
(4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010) with revised plating application procedures. As of the effective date of this AD, during accomplishment of any overhaul specified in paragraph (l) or (o) of this AD, follow the requirements specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD during application of the plating to the carriage spindle, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle, Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 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) The maximum deposition rate of the nickel plating in any one plating/baking cycle must not exceed 0.002-inch-per-hour.
(2) Begin the hydrogen embrittlement relief bake within 10 hours after application of the nickel plating, or less than 24 hours after the current was first applied to the part, whichever is first.
(3) The carriage must not be plated using any high velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) thermal spray process.
Guidance on the application of nickel plating can be found in Chapter 20–42–09, Electrodeposited Nickel Plating, of the Boeing (737) Standard Overhaul Practices Manual, Revision 25, dated July 1, 2009.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (n) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003; and Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012; recommend that operators report inspection findings to the manufacturer, this AD does not require reporting.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010) with clarification of overhaul restrictions. At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection for corrosion, pitting, and cracking of the carriage spindle; magnetic particle inspection for cracking of the carriage spindle; measurements of the spindle to determine if it meets the allowable minimum diameter; overhauls of the carriage spindle; and applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011, may be used to perform the actions specified in this paragraph. The applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Repeat these actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12,000 flight cycles on the carriage spindle or every 8 years since first installation of the carriage spindle on the airplane, whichever comes first. As of the effective date of this AD: For any overhaul required by this paragraph, the carriage spindle must be overhauled in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
(1) For Model 737–100, -200, -200C series airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) and (o)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles on the carriage spindle since new or overhauled, or within 8 years after the installation of the new or overhauled part, whichever comes first.
(ii) Within 1 year after August 31, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–15–08,
(2) For Model –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (o)(2)(i) and (o)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles on the carriage spindle since new or overhauled, or within 8 years after the installation of the new or overhauled part, whichever comes first.
(ii) Within 2 years after August 31, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010)).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information and a shortened compliance time. For Model 737–100, –200, –200C series airplanes: Replace the carriage spindle with a new or documented (for which the service life, in total flight cycles, is known) carriage spindle, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011; at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011, may be used to perform the replacement. Overhauling the carriage spindles does not zero-out the flight cycles. Total flight cycles accumulate since new.
(1) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i) and (p)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage.
(ii) Within 3 years or 7,500 flight cycles after August 31, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010)), whichever occurs first.
(2) Before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised service information and a shortened compliance time. For Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes: Replace the carriage spindle with a new or documented (for which the service life, in flight cycles, is known) carriage spindle, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011; at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (q)(1) and (q)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011, may be used to perform the replacement required by this paragraph. Overhauling the carriage spindles does not zero-out the flight cycles. Total flight cycles accumulate since new.
(1) Before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage.
(2) Within 6 years or 15,000 flight cycles after August 31, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010)), whichever occurs first.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (r) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010). For airplanes with an undocumented carriage: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (r)(1) or (r)(2) of this AD.
(1) For Model 737–100, –200, –200C series airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (p) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (p)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(2) For Model –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (q) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (s) of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), with revised compliance times.
(1) For airplanes on which the actions required by paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD, as applicable, have been done as of the effective date of this AD: Repeat the replacement of the carriage spindle specified by paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD, as applicable, one time at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 40,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage spindle.
(i) Before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage.
(ii) Within 6 years or 15,000 flight cycles after August 31, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010)), whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes on which the actions required by paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD, as applicable, have not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Repeat the replacement of the carriage spindle specified by paragraph (p) or (q) of this AD, as applicable, thereafter at intervals not to exceed 40,000 total flight cycles on the new or overhauled carriage spindle.
Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011, specify a compliance time after the dates of those service bulletins, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) through (s) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 2, dated June 9, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (w) 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, ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs previously approved in accordance with AD 2003–24–08, Amendment 39–13377 (68 FR 67027, December 1, 2003), or AD 2010–15–08, Amendment 39–16374 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010), are approved as AMOCs for individual repairs are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding provisions of this AD. All other existing AMOCs are not acceptable.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–6440; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (x)(5) and (x)(6) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 22, 2014.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 6, dated June 9, 2011.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 3, dated May 16, 2012.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 31, 2010 (75 FR 43803, July 27, 2010).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1218, Revision 5, dated February 9, 2009.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–57A1277, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2003.
(5) For Boeing 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
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004–12–07 for certain The Boeing Company Model 757 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. AD 2004–12–07 required modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure; and for certain airplanes, repetitive detailed inspections of certain aft bulkhead fasteners for loose or missing fasteners, and corrective action if necessary. For certain other airplanes, AD 2004–12–07 required a one-time detailed inspection of the middle gusset of the inboard side load fitting for proper alignment, and realignment if necessary; a one-time eddy current inspection of certain fastener holes for cracking, and repair if necessary; and a detailed inspection of certain fasteners for loose or missing fasteners, and replacement with new fasteners if necessary. This new AD specifies a maximum compliance time limit. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that the actual operational loads applied to the nacelle are higher than the analytical loads that were used during the initial design. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the strut.
This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July 21, 2004 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004).
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of January 3, 2000 (64 FR 66370, November 26, 1999).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6440; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004). AD 2004–12–07 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 757 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. 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 22215, April 15, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it concurs with the contents of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013).
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013).
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013) as (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule to state that installation of STC ST01518SE (
FedEx requested that we clarify the requirements of paragraph (j) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013), which specified concurrent actions. FedEx explained that the NPRM requirement and paragraph 1.B., of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, conflict with the information in paragraph D., of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011. FedEx stated that paragraph D. of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, states that Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994 (the concurrent actions required by paragraph (j) of the NPRM); no longer need to be accomplished.
We agree to clarify the concurrent actions. Table I of paragraph D. in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, is in error. We have added Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this final rule, which states that paragraph D. of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, incorrectly states that the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994; no longer need to be accomplished.
American Airlines (AAL) requested that we change paragraph (j) (concurrent actions) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013), which specifies doing the actions at the same time as paragraph (i) of the NPRM, to specify that the concurrent actions are to be done at the same time as the actions required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM. AAL stated that the pylon modification action is mandated by paragraph (g) of the NPRM, and paragraph (i) of the NPRM mandates only the time at which the modification must be accomplished.
We do not agree with the commenter's request because, although the requirement for the modification is first specified in paragraph (g) of this final rule, which is a restatement from AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004), the new requirement is in paragraph (i) of this final rule. Paragraph (i) of this final rule correctly references paragraph (g) of this final rule. If the concurrent actions specified in paragraph (j) of this final rule are to be accomplished at the same time as paragraph (g) of this final rule, as the commenter suggests, that would make the requirement retroactive, and would potentially put operators out of compliance. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
AAL requested that we allow credit for repairs specified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013) that are made “before the effective date of this AD” using Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, dated March 31, 1994; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (k)(1) of this final rule requires that cracking be repaired using a method approved by the FAA as specified in paragraph (n) of the final rule. Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, dated March 31, 1994; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994; do not contain procedures for repairing cracking, and only specify to contact Boeing if cracking is found. We infer that the commenter is requesting credit for any repair done in accordance with procedures provided by Boeing or with the operator's own methods. The commenter has not provided any details about any such repairs, and therefore we cannot give credit for these repairs. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this final rule, repairs may be approved if substantiating data are provided showing that the repair provides an acceptable level of safety.
For paragraph (k)(2) of this final rule, Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994, is already specified as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing repair of the holes. In addition, since Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, dated March 31, 1994, does not contain procedures for repairing holes, we cannot give credit for Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, dated March 31, 1994. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this final rule, repairs may be approved if substantiating data are provided showing that the repair provides an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
AAL requested that we not require the paragraph following the compliance table in paragraph l.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011. AAL stated that the interim inspections specified in the paragraph following the compliance table in paragraph l.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, are unclear and that, if required, the inspections should be specified in a new (additional) paragraph.
We agree to clarify. Paragraphs (g) and (i) of this final rule specifically require accomplishment of the modification of the strut as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, and do not require any interim inspections. Although there are certain inspections specifically required in paragraphs (h) and (j) of this final rule, there are no interim inspections specified in any paragraph of this final rule. Therefore, the interim inspections defined in the paragraph following the table in paragraph l.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, are not required by this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
AAL requested that we allow instructions to be worked out of sequence. AAL stated that by requiring operators to adhere to the sequence of steps as organized in the service information, based on the strictest interpretation, it can place an undue burden on operators and drive longer aircraft out-of-service time. AAL asserted that not allowing instructions to be worked out of sequence prevents operators from working on the wing
We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree with revising the final rule to allow work to be accomplished on the wing structure and the removed pylon structure simultaneously, and for work to be accomplished on both pylons simultaneously, because no detrimental effect on the airplane results from accomplishing the service information in this way.
We disagree with allowing all service information steps to be worked out of sequence. This allowance could be interpreted as allowing service information steps at one pylon, or at one wing location, to be performed out of sequence, which could detrimentally affect the result of the modification.
We also disagree with stating that opposite sides of the strut can be worked at different rates, as some tasks are necessary to be performed in sequence. For further clarification of strut task sequencing, operators may request approval of an AMOC by providing additional details defining the tasks using the procedures defined in paragraph (n) of this final rule.
We have added new paragraph (l) to this final rule, which states that although Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, specifies to work the wing modification before the strut modification, this AD allows for the wing and strut modifications to occur simultaneously. This AD also allows for both struts to be modified simultaneously. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also referenced paragraph (l) in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this final rule.
AAL requested that we require only the steps in the service information that are critical for safety of flight. AAL suggested that only Part II, Steps 6, 7, and 9–12; Part III, Steps 4–24; Part IV, Steps 3–7; and Part VI, Steps 3–16 and 19; of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, should be required. AAL stated that preparation and open-up and close-up instructions are not necessary to mandate and can be left to operator discretion on the best methods without affecting the ability to address the safety issue that exists.
We do not agree with AAL's request. Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, already allows operator's discretion for certain actions. Note 8 of paragraph 3.B.A., “General Information,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, specifies that when the words “refer to” are used for a procedure, operators may use an accepted alternative procedure. Note 11 of paragraph 3.B.A., “General Information,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, specifies that for access, all the identified parts do not need to be removed if you can get access without removing the identified parts and that additional parts may be removed if needed.
However, due to the complexity of the modification to the strut, certain preparation and installation steps are needed to prevent damage to the strut structure, systems components, and the engine. In addition, a fuel leak check is specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, to ensure that the modification and reassembly were completed and that no hidden damage exists. Therefore, no changes have been made to this final rule in this regard.
Although we have not revised this final rule, we do agree with the concept of minimizing AD requirements when appropriate. The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a new process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20–176, dated December 19, 2011 (
Contrary to AAL's statement that ADs should mandate only those service bulletin provisions that are necessary to ensure safety of flight, ADs generally contain requirements that are reasonably related to addressing the unsafe condition, as determined by the FAA and the design approval holder that developed the service bulletin. Typically, operators' maintenance programs were not developed in recognition of the unsafe condition that is being addressed by an AD. Whenever we issue an AD, those programs had failed to prevent the unsafe condition in the first place. Therefore, many provisions of ADs address aspects of accomplishing the required maintenance that are necessary to prevent operators from inadvertently aggravating the unsafe condition or introducing new unsafe conditions.
For many years, the Air Transport Association (now Airlines for America, A4A) has sponsored the “Lead Airline” program through which individual airlines are provided an opportunity to prototype manufacturers' draft service instructions before they are finalized. One objective of this activity is to minimize the procedures included in the instructions that are considered unnecessary. Therefore, when the FAA receives a manufacturer's service bulletin, we recognize that the procedures specified have been determined to be necessary by both the manufacturer and affected operators. As in this case, the instructions provided in service bulletins referenced in ADs are reasonably related to addressing the unsafe condition.
As always, if AAL or any other operator prefers to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information, they may request approval for an alternative method of compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this final rule, and, if approved, may use it instead of the procedures specified in the service information.
AAL requested that we revise paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013) to remove the extra word “dated” from the service information citation.
We agree to correct the typographical error and have removed the extra word “dated.”
The information in paragraph (l)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013) has been separated into two paragraphs in this final rule (paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this final rule). In addition, we changed the reference in paragraph (m)(3) of this final rule to refer to the actions required by paragraph (j)(1) of this final rule. We also changed the reference in paragraph (m)(4) to this final rule to refer to the actions required by paragraph (j)(2) of this final rule. The content has not been changed.
The information in paragraph (m)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 2013) has been added to new paragraph (n)(4) of this final rule. The content has not been changed.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22215, April 15, 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 22215, April 15, 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 176 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.
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 have 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 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 22, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004).
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757–200, –200PF, and
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/Pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports indicating that the actual operational loads applied to the nacelle are higher than the analytical loads that were used during the initial design. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in primary strut structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the strut.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004), with new service information: Modify the nacelle strut and wing structure according to Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, dated July 17, 1997; Revision 1, dated April 15, 1999; Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002; or Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011; except as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD; at the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. All of the terminating actions described in paragraph I.C., Table I, “Strut Improvement Bulletins,” on page 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, dated July 17, 1997; page 7 of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 1, dated April 15, 1999; and on page 7 of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002; as applicable; must be accomplished prior to, or concurrently with, the accomplishment of the modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure required by this paragraph. After July 21, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004–12–07), use only Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011. After the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles, or prior to 20 years since the date of manufacture of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles after January 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 99–24–07, Amendment 39–11431 (64 FR 66370, November 26, 1999)).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004), with new service information. For airplanes on which the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done according to Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, dated July 17, 1997: Within 15,000 flight cycles after doing the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 3 years after July 21, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004–12–07), whichever is later; do a one-time detailed inspection of the middle gusset of the inboard side load fitting for proper alignment, according to Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 1, dated April 15, 1999; or Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002, excluding Evaluation Form; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011; except as specified by paragraph (l) of this AD. If the gusset is not aligned properly: Before further flight, machine the gusset to the specified angle according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 1, dated April 15, 1999; or Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002, excluding Evaluation Form; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.
For airplanes on which the modification of the nacelle strut and wing structure required by paragraph (g) of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Do the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) At the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, except that where this service bulletin specifies a compliance time “from the date on Revision 4 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles after January 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 99–24–07, Amendment 39–11431 (64 FR 66370, November 26, 1999)).
Concurrently with or prior to the accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985: Modify the nacelle strut upper spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985.
(2) For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994: Do a detailed inspection and non-destructive test inspection for cracking of the lower chord, mid-chord, and holes (for cracking, galling, corrosion, or damage due to fastener removal), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994.
Paragraph D. of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, incorrectly states that the actions described in Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994; no longer need to be accomplished.
(1) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(2) If any holes with galling, corrosion, or damage due to fastener removal are found during any inspection required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994.
Although Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011, specifies to work the wing modification before the strut modification, this AD allows for the wing and strut modifications to occur simultaneously. This AD also allows for both struts to be modified simultaneously.
(1) 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 Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 4, dated June 18, 2009; or Revision 5, dated June 9, 2011; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 4, dated June 18, 2009; or Revision 5, dated June 9, 2011; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, dated December 14, 1984, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004–12–07, Amendment 39–13666 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004), are approved as AMOCs for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, except for AMOCs that approved a revised compliance time.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6440; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(6) and (p)(7) 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 22, 2014.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0003, Revision 1, dated August 30, 1985.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0028, Revision 1, dated August 25, 1994.
(iii) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 6, dated December 2, 2011.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 21, 2004 (69 FR 33561, June 16, 2004).
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 1, dated April 15, 1999.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, Revision 2, dated June 13, 2002.
(5) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 3, 2000 (64 FR 66370, November 26, 1999).
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–54–0035, dated July 17, 1997.
(ii) Reserved.
(6) 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; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet:
(7) You may view copies of 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.
(8) 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 all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolts in a rudder pedal assembly. This AD requires repetitive replacements of the rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolts and repetitive inspections of the rudder pedal assembly bolt holes in each of the captain and the first officer rudder pedal assemblies, and if necessary, repair or replacement of worn rudder pedal assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolts during pedal use, which could result in large involuntary inputs to the rudder and nose-wheel steering and an asymmetric application of braking, if pedal brakes are applied, leading to a runway excursion.
This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 22, 2014.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 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 all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air Line Pilots Association International (the commenter) stated that it agrees with the intent of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013), but requested that we reduce the compliance time from 60 months to 24 months. The commenter provided no justification for this request.
We disagree with the request to revise the compliance time in this final rule. In developing the compliance time for this final rule, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but also the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly modification of the fleet, the availability of required parts, and the time necessary for the rulemaking process. We find that the compliance time, as proposed, adequately represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition in the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013), and suggested language to clarify the expectation of asymmetric braking, in the event of fracture of the subject bolt. Boeing added that symmetric braking inputs prior to fracture can become asymmetric following bolt fracture due to loss of brake inputs on the affected side.
We agree with the request to revise the unsafe condition for the reasons provided by Boeing. We have revised this final rule to reflect the revised language.
Aviation Technical Services, Inc. (the commenter) requested that we revise the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) to mandate only one version of the service information. The commenter also requested that we require that Boeing combine both versions of the service bulletin specified in the NPRM, into one final revision. The commenter reasoned that having two versions of the service bulletin will require operators and maintenance providers to integrate the two service bulletins in order to comply with the NPRM. The commenter expressed that this burden should be on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and the FAA.
The commenter also requested that to further determine the adequacy of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, the FAA should use its own guidance, as provided by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20–176, dated December 19, 2011 (
We disagree with the request to provide a single service bulletin version for the required method of compliance. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, includes only minor corrections to washer part numbers in top kit 012N8932–21 and an additional instruction for getting better access, if necessary, for the detailed inspections required by this final rule. It is not necessary that Boeing combine both revisions of the referenced service bulletin into one final revision.
Also, the design approval holder (DAH) followed the guidance in FAA AC 20–176, dated December 19, 2011 (
Aviation Technical Services, Inc. (the commenter) requested that we revise the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) to provide sufficient instruction to determine the installation finish associated with the replacement bushing for the rudder pedal pushrod. The commenter reasoned that the instructions provided by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, refer to Boeing Standard Overhaul Practices Manual (SOPM) 20–50–03 for the shrink fit procedure to install repair bushings, and that the SOPM procedure contain instructions such as: “Apply the specified installation finish. . . .” and “Refer to the overhaul instructions for applicable operations. . . .” The commenter asserted that neither Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, nor the SOPM provide sufficient instruction to determine the installation finish associated with the replacement bushing for the rudder pedal pushrod.
We disagree to revise this final rule. Step 4 of Figures 3 and 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, already provides procedures for installing bushing 001N0004–1 with BMS 5–95 sealant, as specified in “the shrink fit” procedure referred to in Standard Overhaul Practices Manual (SOPM) 20–50–03 (bushing 001N0004–1 is already finished). SOPM 20–50–03 Bearing and Bushing Replacement, Paragraph 7.B, “Shrink Fit (Temperature Differential) Procedure,” specifies, among other things, to apply the specified installation finish “as specified in Paragraph 6B,” which, in turn, specifies “Installation with sealant.” The finish is, in this case, the sealant that is used during the installation (BMS 5–95). Therefore, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29,
American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) to match certain wording in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012. AAL explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, refers to bolt part number (P/N) BACB30NM5DK47 as changed to P/N BACB30UU5K48D as the rudder pedal pushrod bolt, while the NPRM refers to this part number as the rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolt. AAL expressed that matching the terminology in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, would eliminate any possible confusion.
We disagree with the request to match the terminology in this final rule with the terminology found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012. The word “connecting” was added in the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) to further clarify that this bolt secures the rudder pedal arm to the rudder pushrod. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) to require only those instructions that correct the unsafe condition. AAL explained that paragraphs (g) and (h) of the NPRM are more restrictive than necessary to ensure safety of flight, and that the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, should not be mandated in their entirety.
AAL requested the following revisions to certain paragraphs of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013):
• Since paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) specified a detailed inspection of the rudder pedal assembly bolt holes, the only procedure that should be mandated by this paragraph is FIGURE 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
• Since paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) specified replacement of a new bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin, the only procedure that should be mandated by this paragraph is FIGURE 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
• Paragraph (h)(2)(i) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) should be revised as follows: “Install a new rudder pedal assembly in accordance with `Condition 2' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012; or install a bushing in the worn hole in accordance with FIGURE 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.”
• Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) specified installation of a new bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, does not provide explicit instructions to replace the bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin in the event that the diameter of only one hole is greater than 0.3140 inch. There is only a note in the procedure to make sure to discard the existing hardware, and to install new hardware as provided in Boeing Kit 0l2N8932–21.
AAL has determined that the instructions provided in FIGURE 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, contain the proper instructions and part numbers to replace the bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin to correct the unsafe condition. Therefore, the only procedure that should be mandated by this paragraph is FIGURE 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
• Paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) should be revised as follows: “Install a new rudder pedal assembly in accordance with `Condition 2' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, or install two bushings in the two worn holes in accordance with FIGURE 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.”
• Paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 2013) requires installation of a new bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, does not provide explicit instructions to replace the bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin in the event that the diameters of both holes are greater than 0.3140 inch. Again, there is only a note in the procedure to make sure to discard the existing hardware, and to install new hardware as provided in Boeing Kit 012N8932–21.
AAL has determined that the instructions provided in FIGURE 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012, contain the proper instructions and part numbers to replace the bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin to correct the unsafe condition. Therefore, the only procedure that should be mandated by this paragraph is FIGURE 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
We agree with the concept of minimizing AD requirements when appropriate. However, we do not agree with AAL's request. The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a new
In response to the AD Implementation ARC, the FAA released AC 20–176, dated December 19, 2011 (
Contrary to AAL's statement that ADs should mandate only those service bulletin provisions that are “necessary to ensure safety of flight,” ADs generally contain requirements that are reasonably related to addressing the unsafe condition, as determined by the FAA and the design approval holder that developed the service bulletin. Typically, operators' maintenance programs were not developed in recognition of the unsafe condition that is being addressed by an AD. Whenever we issue an AD, those programs had failed to prevent the unsafe condition in the first place. Therefore, many provisions of ADs address aspects of accomplishing the required maintenance that are necessary to prevent operators from inadvertently aggravating the unsafe condition or introducing new unsafe conditions.
For many years, the Air Transport Association (now Airlines for America, A4A) has sponsored the “Lead Airline” program through which individual airlines are provided an opportunity to prototype manufacturers' draft service instructions before they are finalized. One objective of this activity is to minimize the procedures included in the instructions that are considered unnecessary. Therefore, when the FAA receives a manufacturer's service bulletin, we recognize that the procedures specified have been determined to be necessary by both the manufacturer and affected operators. As in this case, the instructions provided in service bulletins referenced in ADs are reasonably related to addressing the unsafe condition.
As always, if AAL or any other operator prefers to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information, they may request approval for an alternative method of compliance and, if approved, may use it instead of the procedures specified in the service information.
Therefore, no changes have been made to 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:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 27315, May 10, 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 27315, May 10, 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 685 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/replacements 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/replacements:
The on-condition costs in the table above are per rudder pedal assembly. Depending on the diameter of the holes found during the inspection, it may be necessary to replace or repair the rudder pedal assemblies. The parts cost to replace or repair the rudder pedal assemblies are not included in the estimate; it is considered “Parts & Materials Supplied by the Operator,” which is referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
Certain requirements of this AD terminate the requirements of AD 2001–22–13, Amendment 39–12492 (66 FR 55075, November 1, 2001), for Model 757 airplanes.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of fractured rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolts in the rudder pedal assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolts during pedal use, which could result in large involuntary inputs to the rudder and nose-wheel steering and an asymmetric application of braking, if pedal brakes are applied, leading to a runway excursion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the rudder pedal assembly bolt holes to determine the diameter in each of the captain and the first officer rudder pedal assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012. Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight cycles.
Do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD for each of the captain and first officer rudder pedal assemblies, based on the results of any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Accomplishment of paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2001–22–13, Amendment 39–12492 (66 FR 55075, November 1, 2001), for that Model 757 airplane only.
(1) If the diameters of both holes are within 0.3120 and 0.3140 inch on the assembly, before further flight, install a new rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
(2) If the diameter of only one hole is greater than 0.3140 inch on the assembly, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Install a new rudder pedal assembly, or install a bushing in the worn hole, in accordance with the Accomplishment
(ii) Install a new rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
(3) If the diameters of both holes are greater than 0.3140 inch on the assembly, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Install a new rudder pedal assembly, or install two bushings in the two worn holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
(ii) Install a new rudder pedal pushrod connecting bolt, washer, nut, and cotter pin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, in a rudder pedal assembly of any Boeing Model 757 airplane, a bolt having part number (P/N) BACB30NM5DK47.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if operators installed washers having P/N NAS1149D0516J, NAS1149D0532J, and NAS1149D0563J, and if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012, as unmodified by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
(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 (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6418; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the address specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, dated May 9, 2012.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757–27A0153, Revision 1, dated October 29, 2012.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2008–11–04 for all The Boeing Company Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. AD 2008–11–04 required repetitive inspections for cracking in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD reduces the inspection threshold for cracking in and around the galley service doorway hinge cutouts, adds inspections of certain repaired structure at the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts, expands the inspection area at the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts, and removes certain airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracks in the skin and/or bear strap at the forward galley service doorway hinge cutouts, and multiple reports of cracking under the repairs installed at the hinge cutouts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
This AD is effective April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June 25, 2008 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
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; phone: 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, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6450; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). AD 2008–11–04 applied to all 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 comments received on the proposal (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Southwest Airlines (SWA) and Boeing requested we add a provision to the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) to specify that performing a repair in accordance with “Boeing 737–300/–400/–500 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 53–10–01, Repair 14 and Repair 15” is considered terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (j) of the NPRM for the repaired location. Boeing stated that the repairs are in the referenced SRM, and those repairs incorporate the procedures specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
We agree that certain SRM repairs meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. However, to include SRM repairs in this final rule would unnecessarily delay issuance of the final rule. Boeing may apply for a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) on behalf of the affected operators in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this final rule. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
All Nippon Airways (ANA) stated that no further action should be necessary if the repair meets the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, and that this should be addressed in paragraph (k)(3) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013), which terminates paragraph (g) of the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter's request. The conditions provided in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, ensure that the non-SRM repairs were developed to preclude further cracking.
We note that there is no paragraph (k)(3) in the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013), and infer that ANA meant to request that a new paragraph (k)(3) be added to this final rule. Instead, we have added new paragraph (n) to this final rule and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. New paragraph (n) of this final rule states that the inspections required by paragraph (j) of this final rule may be terminated at areas with repairs installed prior to the effective date of this final rule if those repairs meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
Boeing requested that we modify paragraph (o)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) (paragraph (p)(4) in this final rule) to include the additional conditions shown in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. Boeing stated that the paragraph should state that AMOCs approved previously for paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (i) of the NPRM, provided that the repairs meet the criteria of Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. Boeing stated that the conditions provided in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, ensure that the repairs were developed to preclude post-modification cracking.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. The commenter's concerns are adequately addressed in paragraph (k)(2) of this final rule, which requires additional actions when repairs do not meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, whether or not the repair was approved previously as an AMOC for AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
ANA requested that we add a new paragraph (o)(5) to the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) to clarify that AMOCs approved previously for the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for paragraph (g) of the NPRM. ANA stated that if the repair meets the criteria specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, then the inspection required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM should be terminated even if an AMOC statement in FAA Form 8100–9 (Statement of Compliance with Airworthiness Standards) is not the same as paragraph (o)(4) of the NPRM. ANA asserted that a new AMOC to the NPRM will be necessary if the AMOC statement only refers to paragraph (f) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
We do not agree. Paragraph (p)(4) of this final rule (which was designated as paragraph (o)(4) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013)), as currently worded, addresses ANA's concern. A repair which has an AMOC for only paragraph (f) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), would be approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this final rule.
Further, we understand ANA to mean that this particular repair satisfies the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. If this is the case, then new paragraph (n) of this final rule, discussed previously, means that this repair satisfies the requirements of paragraph (j) of this final rule, which would terminate the inspection requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008) in the repaired area. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
SWA requested that we delete Note 1 to paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013), which states that “Guidance on repairs can be found in Boeing 737–100/–200 SRM 53–30–1, Figure 20, 21, 31, or 32; or Boeing 737–300/–400/–500 SRM 53–10–01, Repair 5, 6, or 8; as applicable.” SWA noted that Boeing 737–300/–500 SRM 53–10–01, Repairs 5, 6, and 8 have been removed as they are no longer applicable. SWA stated that the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) is in error when it states that guidance on repairs can be found in these locations.
We agree with SWA's request. Subsequent to the issuance of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), Boeing removed the noted SRM repairs from the 737–300/–400/–500 SRMs. For the Boeing 737–100/200 SRM, the noted repairs were not removed, but each page was watermarked OBSOLETE. For clarity, we have deleted Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this final rule.
Boeing requested that we not retain paragraph (i) from AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). Boeing asserted that paragraph (i) of AD 2008–11–04 provides terminating actions for airplanes on which areas were repaired in accordance with “Boeing 737–100/–200 SRM 53–30–1, Figures 20, 21, 31, or 32; or Boeing 737–300/–400/–500 SRM 53–10–01, Repair 5, 6, or 8.” Boeing stated that allowing the repairs listed in paragraph (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 2013) as terminating action would conflict with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, and paragraph (k) of the NPRM. Boeing added that Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, requires follow-on inspections for SRM repairs, which are required based on fleet reports showing crack susceptibility after the repair has been installed. Boeing stated that new repairs are now provided in the SRM.
We disagree with the commenter's request. Paragraph (i) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), is not retained as written in AD 2008–11–04, but rather it is retained “. . . with revised method of compliance language. . . .” Paragraph (i) states, “The inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be terminated at areas repaired using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) [AMOC] of this AD.” Thus, operators cannot continue to install the noted obsolete/removed repairs specified previously in AD 2008–11–04. Boeing has addressed repairs installed previously by providing inspections for them in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. These inspections are mandated by paragraph (k) of this final rule. 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:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 22439, April 16, 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 22439, April 16, 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 547 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have 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 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 22, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
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 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracks in the skin and/or bear strap at the forward galley service doorway hinge cutouts, and multiple reports of cracking under the repairs installed at the hinge cutouts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008). Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, do external detailed, low frequency eddy current (LFEC), high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and HFEC rotary probe inspections, as applicable, for cracks in and around the upper and lower hinge cutouts of the forward entry and forward galley service doorways, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(2) and (i) of this AD. Do not exceed the applicable repetitive interval for the previous inspection, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, as Option A or Option B. Repair any crack before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, specifies a compliance time after the release date of that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after June 25, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008)).
(2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006, specifies contacting Boeing for information about installing an optional preventive modification that would terminate the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, this AD requires that any terminating action be done by using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the optional terminating action specified paragraph (i) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), with revised method of compliance language and removal of note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD. The inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD may be terminated at areas repaired using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
Except as required by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012: Do an external and internal detailed inspection, HFEC inspection, and HFEC hole probe inspection, at the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts for cracking in the skin, bonded doubler, bearstrap, and frame outer chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD. Options provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, for accomplishing the inspections are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this paragraph. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Accomplishment of the initial
(1) For airplanes with any structural repair manual (SRM) repair specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (k)(1)(vii) of this AD installed, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012: Do an external and internal detailed inspection, HFEC inspection, and LFEC inspection, at the forward entry and galley service doorway upper and lower hinge cutouts for cracking in the skin, bearstrap, and frame outer chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, except as required by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
(i) Repair specified in Boeing 737–100/–200 SRM 53–30–03, Figure 21.
(ii) Repair specified in Boeing 737–100/200 SRM 53–30–03, Figure 31.
(iii) Repair 5 specified in Boeing 737–300 SRM 53–10–01; Repair 5 specified in Boeing 737–400 SRM 53–10–01; or Repair 5 specified in Boeing 737–500 SRM 53–10–01; installed at the upper or lower hinge cutout.
(iv) Repair specified in Boeing 737–100/200 SRM 53–30–03, Figure 20.
(v) Repair 6 specified in Boeing 737–300 SRM 53–10–01; Repair 6 specified in Boeing 737–400 SRM 53–10–01; or Repair 6 specified in Boeing 737–500 SRM 53–10–01.
(vi) Repair 8 specified in Boeing 737–300 SRM 53–10–01; Repair 8 specified in Boeing 737–400 SRM 53–10–01; or Repair 8 specified in Boeing 737–500 SRM 53–10–01.
(vii) Repair specified in Boeing 737–100/200 SRM 53–30–03, Figure 32.
(2) For airplanes with any repair installed at the forward entry doorway or forward galley doorway, upper or lower hinge cutout, that does not meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012: Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, contact the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, for instructions, using the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, and do the actions required by the FAA.
(1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, specifies a compliance time after the issue date of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2011, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for further instructions, this AD requires contacting the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, for instructions and doing the actions required by the FAA, using the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
For Group 5 airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012: Before further flight, contact the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, for instructions, using the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, and do the actions required by the FAA.
The inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD may be terminated at areas with repairs installed prior to the effective date of this AD, provided the repairs meet the conditions specified in Note 10 of paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 1, dated July 7, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (q)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2008–11–04, Amendment 39–15526 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6450; fax: 425–917–6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (r)(5) and (r)(6) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 22, 2014.
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, Revision 2, dated September 12, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 25, 2008 (73 FR 29421, May 21, 2008).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–53A1200, dated April 13, 2006.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) 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; phone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet:
(6) 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.
(7) 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 Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a batch of main landing gear (MLG) door actuators with a certain part number having certain serial numbers could be assembled with the scraper installed backward. This AD requires repetitive functional checks of the MLG alternate extension system (AES) and eventual replacement of certain MLG door actuators with actuators that have either been reworked or do not have certain serial numbers. We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrectly installed scrapers, which could hinder the operation of the MLG AES, and result in failure of the MLG AES on one side, and consequent unsafe asymmetrical landing configuration.
This AD becomes effective April 22, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 22, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; email
Luke Walker, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7363; 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 all Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–28R1, dated November 26, 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:
It was discovered that a batch of [main landing gear] MLG door actuators, [part number] P/N 46830–7, may be assembled with the scraper installed backwards. This condition, if not corrected, could result in increased actuator friction, which could hinder operation of the MLG alternate extension system (AES). In the case of a failure of the primary MLG extension system, the failure of the MLG AES on one side will lead to an unsafe asymmetrical landing configuration.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive functional check of the AES until replacement of the affected MLG door actuators.
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. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Horizon Air noted that the part number of the MLG door actuator was incorrect in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013). The correct part number is 46830–7 but is specified as 16830–7 in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM.
We agree there was an error regarding the part number of the MLG door actuator in paragraphs (i) and (k) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) and have corrected the part number in paragraphs (i) and (k) of this final rule.
Horizon Air stated that paragraph (h) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) does not clearly define the conditions that require a functional check of the MLG AES. Horizon Air commented that the wording of paragraph (h) of the NPRM implied that all MLG door actuators having part number (P/N) 46830–7 must have a functional check accomplished, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. Horizon Air noted that airplanes having MLG actuators that are clearly outside of the affected group do not need a MLG AES functional check. The commenter recommended that the airplanes subject to the functional check of paragraph (h) of the NPRM be changed to those with “. . . any MLG door actuator having P/N 46830–7 and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A., `Effectivity,' of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, or the P/N is unable to be determined.”
We agree with the commenter and have revised paragraph (h) of this final rule to clarify that only MLG door actuators having P/N 46830–7 and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, or a part number that cannot be determined, require a functional check.
One commenter, Mattson, requested that the language in the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) be changed
We agree to clarify the required actions. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 2013) do not require the actions in paragraphs 3.A., “Job Set-Up,” and 3.C., “Close Out,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–2–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. The actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM must be done in accordance with Part A, “Inspection,” and Part B, “Actuator Replacement,” of paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–2–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. For clarity, we have revised paragraphs (h) and (i) of this final rule to include the reference to paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 49240, August 13, 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 49240, August 13, 2013).
We estimate that this AD affects 2 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 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 22, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–400, –401, and –402 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report that a batch of main landing gear (MLG) door actuators with a certain part number having certain serial numbers could be assembled with the scraper installed backward. We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrectly installed scrapers, which could hinder the operation of the MLG alternate extension system (AES), and result in failure of the MLG AES on one side, and consequent unsafe asymmetrical landing configuration.
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 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect the MLG door actuators to determine whether part number (P/N) 46830–7 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the MLG door actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.
If, during the inspection to determine the part number of the MLG actuators as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any MLG door actuator having P/N 46830–7 and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, is found; or if the part number is unable to be determined: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do a functional check of the MLG AES, in accordance with Part A of paragraph 3.B. “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles until the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD are done. If the force applied during the functional check exceeds 67 pound-force (lbf), before further flight, replace the affected actuator, in accordance with Part B of paragraph 3.B. “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012.
(1) For airplanes with MLG door actuators that have accumulated more than 950 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD: Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes with MLG door actuators that have accumulated 950 total flight hours or less as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Replace all MLG door actuators having P/N 46830–7 and a serial number included in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, with MLG door actuators reworked in accordance with Part B of paragraph 3.B. “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, or with a MLG door actuator having P/N 46830–7 and a serial number that is not included in section 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012. Installation of a MLG door actuator having P/N 46830–7 with “Mod Status 32–106” on the identification plate is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 3,000 total flight hours on any MLG door actuator, or within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) Within 12 months or 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, dated September 6, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG door actuator having P/N 46830–7, with a serial number identified in paragraph 1.A. “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012, unless “Mod Status 32–106” is on the identification plate.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2012–28R1, dated November 26, 2012, for related information. The 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 obtained at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(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 84–32–108, Revision A, dated October 1, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; 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.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 3, 2014.
Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, April 03, 2014.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in April 2014 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the second quarter of 2014. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective April 1, 2014.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for April 2014 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the second quarter (April through June) of 2014.
The second quarter 2014 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 3.47 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 3.64 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the first quarter of 2014, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), an increase of 0.12 percent in the select rate, and an increase of 0.14 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
The April 2014 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for March 2014, these interest assumptions are unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during April 2014, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within the navigable waters of Mission Bay for Sea World firework shows. This temporary safety zone covers four evening events held in March 2014. The temporary safety zones provide for the safety of participants, crew, rescue personnel, and other users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
This rule is effective March 18, 2014 until March 23, 2014 and will be enforced from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following four evenings: March 18, March 20, March 21, and March 22, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2014–0015]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Bryan Gollogly, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619–278–7656, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The logistical details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the events to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.
The waterside shows will include a fireworks presentation from a barge in Mission Bay on the following four evenings: March 18, March 20, March 21, and March 22, 2014. The Captain of the Port San Diego has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced over four evenings from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following dates: March 18, March 20, March 21, and March 22, 2014. The limits of the safety zone will include the portion of Mission Bay, south of Fiesta Island and all navigable waters within 600 feet of the fireworks barge, located in approximate position 32°46′03″ N, 117°13′11″ W. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of participants, crew, rescue personnel, and other users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the safety zone being of a limited duration, 70 minutes, and is also limited to a relatively small geographic area of Mission Bay.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of private vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of Mission Bay from 8:50 p.m. to 10 p.m. on March 18, March 20, March 21 and March 22, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The safety zone will only be in effect for 70 minutes late in the evening when vessel traffic is low. It impacts a very small area of Mission Bay, a circle about 1,200 feet in diameter. Vessel traffic can either transit safely around the safety zone by another route, or through the safety zone with approval by the Captain of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this 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 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone on a portion of Mission Bay, south of Fiesta Island and all navigable waters within 600 feet of the fireworks barge, located in approximate position 32°46′03″ N, 117°13′11″ W.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety zone may request authorization to do so from the
Sector San Diego Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC). The Coast Guard Sector San Diego JHOC can be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Commonwealth of Virginia has made a submittal addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO
This final rule is effective on April 17, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by email at
On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47264), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia proposing approval of Virginia's May 30, 2013 submittal to satisfy several requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO
The rationale supporting EPA's proposed action, including the scope of infrastructure SIPs in general, is explained in the NPR and the technical support document (TSD) accompanying the NPR and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
EPA received a single set of comments on the August 5, 2013 proposed rulemaking action of Virginia's 2010 NO
Furthermore, the commenter states that the requirements in “51 CFR 51.308(d)” for reasonable progress goals, calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, and a long term strategy cannot be satisfied by broadly averaging emissions or visibility over a number of different Class I areas.
Furthermore, as neither the Commonwealth nor EPA has taken any action to remove CAIR from the Virginia SIP, CAIR remains part of the federally-approved SIP and can be considered in determining whether the SIP as a whole meets the requirement of prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to prong 4 because Virginia's regional haze SIP, which EPA has approved in combination with its SIP provisions to implement CAIR adequately prevents sources in Virginia from interfering with measures adopted by other states to protect visibility during the first planning period.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the CAA does not allow states to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. EPA's regulations allowing states to adopt alternatives to BART that provide for greater reasonable progress, and EPA's determination that states may rely on CAIR to meet the BART requirements, have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit as meeting the requirements of the CAA. In the first case challenging the provisions in the regional haze rule allowing for states to adopt alternative programs in lieu of BART, the court affirmed EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater reasonable progress than BART.
More fundamentally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the adequacy of the BART measures in the Virginia regional haze SIP is relevant to the question of whether the Commonwealth's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA with respect to visibility. EPA interprets the visibility provisions in this section of the CAA as requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states. The regional haze rule includes a similar requirement.
Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must disapprove the visibility provision in Virginia's 2010 NO
Given this, EPA considers the appropriate regional haze SIP submission which Virginia should be evaluating in the progress report required by 40 CFR 51.308(g) is the October 4, 2010 submission. Consequently, Virginia's five year progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) is not due until October 4, 2015, five years from the first regional haze SIP submittal which comprehensively addressed 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e).
Finally, EPA notes that on November 8, 2013 Virginia submitted its five year progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) significantly in advance of its October 4, 2015 due date. On February 11, 2014, EPA signed a separate rulemaking action proposing approval of that report. EPA's review of emissions data from Virginia's five year progress report shows that emissions of the key visibility-impairing pollutant for the southeast, sulfur dioxide (SO
In summary, EPA believes that it appropriately proposed approval of Virginia's infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 NO
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 approving the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof of Virginia's SIP revision: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation of minor sources and minor modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation, public notification, and visibility protection requirements), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is taking separate rulemaking action on the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to Virginia's PSD program and section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128 (State Boards). This rulemaking action does not include section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, since this element is not required to be submitted by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process. This rulemaking action also does not include proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because this element, or portions thereof, is not required to be submitted by a state until the EPA has quantified a state's obligations and Virginia's SIP submittal did not include this element.
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 May 19, 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, addressing certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) which were submitted to EPA on July 12, 2012. This submission revises two heavy duty diesel vehicle idling rules that are applicable in Kansas City and St. Louis. This revision provides clarity to the rules in the applicability section by listing owners and operators of passenger load/unload locations where commercial, public and institutional heavy-duty vehicles load or unload passengers. The affected parties were unintentionally omitted from the applicability section of the rule even though they are required to comply with the rule in the general provisions section. These revisions do not have an adverse affect on air quality. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This direct final rule will be effective May 19, 2014, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 17, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0817, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, or at 913–551–7028, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is taking direct final action to amend Missouri's SIP by approving the state's requests to amend 10 CSR 10–2.385 and 10 CSR 10–5.385,
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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 (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 May 19, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of West Virginia's requests to redesignate to attainment the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH–WV nonattainment area (hereafter “the Steubenville-Weirton Area” or “the Area”) for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on April 17, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0498. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or by email at
On April 13, 2012 and June 8, 2012, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted two separate requests to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM
On December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73769), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation requests for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM
In the NPR, EPA addressed the effects of two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit or Court): The Court's August 21, 2012 decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR); and the Court's January 4, 2013 decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual PM
EPA is taking final actions on the redesignations requests and SIP revisions submitted by the State of West Virginia on April 13, 2012 and June 8, 2012 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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 May 19, 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, approving the redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
The amendments read as follows:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Interim final rule with comment period.
This interim final rule with comment period implements changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and to the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program under the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for FY 2014 (through March 31, 2014) in accordance with sections 1105 and 1106, respectively, of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS–1599–IFC2. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed).
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–1599–IFC2, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244–8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–1599–IFC2, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses prior to the close of the comment period:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–01850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
On December 26, 2013, the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–67) was enacted. Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals for an additional 6 months, through March 31, 2014, of fiscal year (FY) 2014. Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends the Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (MDH) program for an additional 6 months, through March 31, 2014, of FY 2014.
Section 1886(d)(12) of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for an additional payment to each qualifying low-volume hospital under the Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems (IPPS) beginning in FY 2005. Sections 3125 and 10314 of the Affordable Care Act provided for a temporary change in the low-volume hospital payment policy for FYs 2011 and 2012. Section 605 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) extended, for FY 2013, the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the enactment of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, beginning with FY 2014, the low-volume hospital qualifying criteria and payment adjustment returned to the statutory requirements under section 1886(d)(12) of the Act that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act and the ATRA. (For additional information on the expiration of the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy for FYs 2011 through 2013 provided for by the Affordable Care Act and the ATRA, refer to the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50610 through 50613).) The regulations describing the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals are at 42 CFR 412.101.
For FYs 2011 and 2012, sections 3125 and 10314 of the Affordable Care Act expanded the definition of low-volume hospital and modified the methodology for determining the payment adjustment for hospitals meeting that definition. Specifically, the provisions of the Affordable Care Act amended the qualifying criteria for low-volume hospitals under section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act to specify that, for FYs 2011 and 2012, a hospital qualifies as a low-volume hospital if it is more than 15 road miles from another subsection (d) hospital and has less than 1,600 discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under Part A during the fiscal year. In addition, section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act, provides that the low-volume hospital payment adjustment (that is, the percentage increase) is to be determined “using a continuous linear sliding scale ranging from 25 percent for low volume-hospitals with 200 or fewer discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under Part A in the fiscal year to 0 percent for low-volume hospitals with greater than 1,600 discharges of such individuals in the fiscal year.”
We revised the regulations at 42 CFR 412.101 to reflect the changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals according to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act in the FY 2011 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (75 FR 50238 through 50275 and 50414). In addition, we also defined, at § 412.101(a), the term “road miles” to mean “miles” as defined at § 412.92(c)(1), and clarified the existing regulations to indicate that a hospital must continue to qualify as a low-volume hospital in order to receive the payment adjustment in that year (that is, it is not based on a one-time qualification).
Section 605 of the ATRA extended the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act for FY 2013, that is, for discharges occurring before October 1, 2013. In a
Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends, for the first 6 months of FY 2014 (that is, through March 31, 2014), the temporary changes in the low-volume hospital payment policy provided for in FYs 2011 and 2012 by the Affordable Care Act and extended through FY 2013 by the ATRA. Prior to the enactment of section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, beginning with FY 2014, the low-volume hospital definition and payment adjustment methodology returned to the policy established under statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act as extended by the ATRA.
Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends the changes made by the Affordable Care Act and extended by the ATRA by amending sections 1886(d)(12)(B), (C)(i), and (D) of the Act. Subparagraph (B) of section 1886(d)(12) of the Act sets forth the applicable percentage increase under the original low-volume hospital payment adjustment policy established under statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act (that is, the time periods for which the temporary changes provided for by the Affordable Care Act, as extended by the ATRA, do not apply). Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act amends section 1886(d)(12)(B) by striking “fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal years” and inserting “the portion of fiscal year 2014 beginning on April 1, 2014, fiscal year 2015, and subsequent fiscal years.” Section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act, which specifies the definition of a low-volume hospital, is amended by inserting “and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before” after “and 2013,” each place it appears and by inserting “or portion of fiscal year” after “during the fiscal year.” Lastly, section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act, which sets forth the temporary applicable percentage increase provided for by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and extended by the ATRA, is amended by inserting “and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before April 1, 2014,” after “and 2013,” and by inserting “or the portion of fiscal year” after “in the fiscal year”.
As noted previously, section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act amends the definition of a low-volume hospital in subparagraph (C)(i) of section 1886(d)(12) of the Act by inserting “and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before” after “and 2013,” each place it appears. This amendatory text appears to contain a technical error in that it omits “April 1, 2014” which is the date “before” which the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital definition are applicable. As amended by section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, section 1886(d)(12)(C)(i) of the Act reads: “For purposes of this paragraph, the term “low-volume hospital” means, for a fiscal year, a subsection (d) hospital (as defined in paragraph (1)(B)) that the Secretary determines is located more than 25 road miles (or, with respect to fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before 15 road miles) from another subsection (d) hospital and has less than 800 discharges (or, with respect to fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before 1,600 discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A) during the fiscal year or the portion of fiscal year.” Adding “April 1, 2014” after “and the portion of fiscal year 2014 before” would make the applicable period for the changes to section 1886(d)(12)(C) of the Act consistent with the applicable period under the other amendments to section 1886(d)(12) of the Act, which plainly state that the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment are applicable “before April 1, 2014.” Specifically, as amended by section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, section 1886(d)(12)(D) of the Act specifies that the “temporary
To implement the extension of the temporary change in the low-volume hospital payment policy through the first half of FY 2014 (that is, for discharges occurring through March 31, 2014) provided for by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, in accordance with the existing regulations at § 412.101(b)(2)(ii) and consistent with our implementation of the changes in FYs 2011 and 2012 and the extension of those changes in FY 2013, we are updating the discharge data source used to identify qualifying low-volume hospitals and calculate the payment adjustment (percentage increase) for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014. Under existing § 412.101(b)(2)(ii), for FYs 2011, 2012 and 2013, a hospital's Medicare discharges from the most recently available MedPAR data, as determined by CMS, are used to determine if the hospital meets the discharge criteria to receive the low-volume payment adjustment in the current year. The applicable low-volume percentage increase, as originally provided for by the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, is determined using a continuous linear sliding scale equation that results in a low-volume hospital payment adjustment ranging from an additional 25 percent for hospitals with 200 or fewer Medicare discharges to a zero percent additional payment adjustment for hospitals with 1,600 or more Medicare discharges.
For FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014, consistent with our historical policy, qualifying low-volume hospitals and their payment adjustment will be determined using Medicare discharge data from the March 2013 update of the FY 2012 MedPAR file, as these data were the most recent data available at the time of the development of the FY 2014 payment rates and factors established in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule. Table 14 of this interim final rule with comment period (which is available only through the Internet on the CMS Web site at
In order to receive a low-volume hospital payment adjustment under § 412.101, in accordance with our previously established procedure, a hospital must notify and provide documentation to its Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) that it meets the mileage criterion. The use of a Web-based mapping tool, such as MapQuest, as part of documenting that the hospital meets the mileage criterion for low-volume hospitals, is acceptable. The MAC will determine if the information submitted by the hospital, such as the name and street address of the nearest hospitals, location on a map, and distance (in road miles, as defined in the regulations at § 412.101(a)) from the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status, is sufficient to document that the hospital requesting low-volume hospital status meets the mileage criterion. The MAC may follow up with the hospital to obtain additional necessary information to determine whether or not the hospital meets the low-volume hospital mileage criterion. In addition, the MAC will refer to the hospital's Medicare discharge data determined by CMS (as provided in Table 14, which is available only through the Internet on the CMS Web site at
Consistent with our previously established procedure, we are implementing the following procedure for a hospital to request low-volume hospital status for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014. In order for the applicable low-volume percentage increase to be applied to payments for its discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2013 (that is, the beginning of FY 2014), a hospital must make its request for low-volume hospital status in writing and this request must be received by its MAC no later than March 31, 2014. A hospital that qualified for the low-volume payment adjustment in FY 2013 may continue to receive a low-volume payment adjustment for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014 without reapplying if it continues
Requests for low-volume hospital status for FY 2014 discharges occurring before April 1, 2014 that are received by the MAC after March 31, 2014 will be processed by the MAC, however, the hospital will not be eligible to have the low-volume hospital payment adjustment at § 412.101(c)(2) applied to such discharges. In general, this approach is consistent with our procedure for application of the extension of the changes to the low-volume payment adjustment for FY 2013 provided for by the ATRA to payments for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2012. The MAC also will not apply the low-volume hospital payment adjustment at § 412.101(c)(2) prospectively in determining payments for the hospital's FY 2014 discharges, because, beginning on April 1, 2014, the 6-month extension of the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment policy provided for by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act will have expired and the low-volume hospital definition and payment methodology will revert back to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act. If the hospital would have otherwise met the criteria to qualify as a low-volume hospital under the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital policy, the MAC will notify the hospital that, although the hospital meets the low-volume hospital criteria set forth at § 412.101(b)(2)(ii) and would have had low-volume hospital status within 30 days from the date of the determination, the hospital does not meet the criteria for low-volume hospital status applicable for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 at § 412.101(b)(2)(i).
Program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal. In this interim final rule with comment, we are amending the regulations text at 42 CFR 412.101 to make conforming changes to the qualifying criteria and the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals according to the amendments made by section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act discussed previously.
In accordance with section 1886(d)(12) of the Act, beginning on April 1, 2014, the low-volume hospital definition and payment adjustment methodology will revert back to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act (as amended by the ATRA and the Pathway for SGR Reform Act). Specifically, for FY 2014 discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2014 and in subsequent years, in order to qualify as a low-volume hospital, a subsection (d) hospital must be more than 25 road miles from another subsection (d) hospital and have less than 200 discharges (that is, less than 200 total discharges, including both Medicare and non-Medicare discharges) during the fiscal year. (For additional information on the expiration of the temporary changes to the low-volume hospital payment adjustment, refer to section V.C.3. of the preamble of the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50612).)
Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 provides for a 6-month extension of the Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (MDH) program, effective from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. Specifically, section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act amended sections 1886(d)(5)(G)(i) and 1886(d)(5)(G)(ii)(II) of the Act by striking “October 1, 2013” and inserting “April 1, 2014”. Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act also made conforming amendments to sections 1886(b)(3)(D)(i) and 1886(b)(3)(D)(iv) of the Act. Generally, as a result of this extension, a provider that was classified as an MDH as of the September 30, 2013 expiration of the MDH program, will be reinstated as an MDH effective October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, subject to the requirements of the regulations at § 412.108, with no need to reapply for MDH classification. (For additional information on the MDH program and the payment methodology, refer to the FY 2012 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (76 FR 51683 through 51684).)
Prior to the enactment of the ATRA, under section 3124 of the Affordable Care Act, the MDH program authorized by section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act was to expire at the end of FY 2012. Section 606 of the ATRA extended the MDH program through FY 2013. In the FY 2013 IPPS notice (78 FR 14689), we announced the extension of the MDH program through FY 2013 as provided by section 606 of the ATRA. We made the conforming regulatory changes in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH final rule (78 FR 50648 and 50966), amending the regulations at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) to reflect the statutory extension of the MDH program through FY 2013.
In this FY 2014 IPPS interim final rule with comment period, we are amending the regulations at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) to reflect the statutory extension of the MDH program through March 31, 2014, as provided for by section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act. Since MDH status is now extended by statute through March 31, 2014, generally, hospitals that previously qualified for MDH status will be reinstated as an MDH retroactively to October 1, 2013. However, in the following two situations, the effective date of MDH status may not be retroactive to October 1, 2013.
In anticipation of the September 30, 2013 expiration of the MDH provision, and because a hospital cannot be both an SCH and an MDH (see section 1886(d)(5)(G)(iv)(III) of the Act and § 412.108(a)(1)(ii)), we allowed MDHs that applied for reclassification as sole community hospitals (SCHs) by August 31, 2013, to have such status be effective on October 1, 2013 under the regulations at § 412.92(b)(2)(v). MDHs that applied by the August 31, 2013 deadline and were approved for SCH classification received SCH status effective October 1, 2013. Hospitals that applied for SCH status after the August 31, 2013 SCH application deadline would have been subject to the usual effective date for SCH classification, that is, 30 days after the date of CMS' written notification of approval, resulting in an effective date of SCH status later than October 1, 2013. (This policy was noted in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50648).)
In order to be reclassified as an MDH, these hospitals must first cancel their SCH status according to § 412.92(b)(4), because a hospital cannot be both an
One of the criteria to be classified as an MDH is that the hospital must be located in a rural area. To qualify for MDH status, some MDHs reclassified from an urban to a rural hospital designation, under the regulations at § 412.103(b). With the September 30, 2013 expiration of the MDH provision, some of these providers may have requested a cancellation of their rural classification. Therefore, in order to qualify for MDH status, these hospitals must again request to be reclassified as rural under § 412.103(b) and must also reapply for MDH status under § 412.108(b).
We note that because the partial year extension of the MDH program pursuant to section 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act expires on March 31, 2014, there may not be sufficient time for hospitals that have canceled their rural reclassification in anticipation of the expiration of the MDH program to request to be reclassified as rural under § 412.103(b) and then reapply and be approved for MDH status under § 412.108(b) with an effective date before the March 31, 2014 expiration of the MDH program. As noted previously, under § 412.108(b)(3), the Medicare contractor will make a determination regarding whether a hospital meets the criteria for MDH status and notify the hospital within 90 days from the date that it receives the hospital's request and all of the required documentation. Under § 412.108(b)(4), a determination of MDH status made by the Medicare contractor is effective 30 days after the date the fiscal intermediary provides written notification to the hospital.
Any provider that falls within either of the two exceptions listed previously may not have its MDH status automatically reinstated effective October 1, 2013. That is, if a provider reclassified to SCH status or cancelled its rural status effective October 1, 2013, its MDH status will not be retroactive to October 1, 2013, but will instead be applied prospectively, if time permits, based on the date the hospital is notified that it again meets the requirements for MDH status, in accordance with § 412.108(b)(4), after the hospital reapplies for MDH status. Once granted, this MDH status will remain in effect through March 31, 2014, subject to the requirements at § 412.108. However, if a provider reclassified to SCH status or cancelled its rural status effective on a date later than October 1, 2013, MDH status will be reinstated effective from October 1, 2013 but will end on the date on which the provider changed its status to an SCH or cancelled its rural status. Those hospitals may also reapply for MDH status to be effective again 30 days from the date the hospital is notified of the determination, in accordance with § 412.108(b)(4). Once granted, this status will remain in effect through March 31, 2014 subject to the requirements at § 412.108. Providers that fall within either of the two exceptions, in order to reclassify as an MDH, will have to reapply for MDH status according to the classification procedures in 42 CFR 412.108(b). Specifically, the regulations at § 412.108(b) require the following:
• The hospital submit a written request along with qualifying documentation to its contractor to be considered for MDH status.
• The contractor make its determination and notify the hospital within 90 days from the date that it receives the request for MDH classification and all required documentation.
• The determination of MDH status be effective 30 days after the date of the contractor's written notification to the hospital.
For any MDH status requests received after March 31, 2014 (or for which the Medicare contractor's determination is made within 30 days of March 31, 2014, such that the effective date of MDH status would be after March 31, 2014), the Medicare contractor will process the request and send a letter to the hospital indicating that, although the hospital meets the MDH classification criteria set forth at § 412.108(a) and would have had a MDH status effective date of 30 days from the date of that letter, the MDH program has expired by that date under current law. That is, because section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends the MDH program through March 31, 2014 only, MDH status cannot be applied for requests received after March 31, 2014 (or for which the Medicare contractor's determination is made within 30 days of March 31, 2014, such that the effective date of MDH status would be after March 31, 2014). The following are examples of various scenarios that illustrate how and when MDH status under section 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act will be determined for hospitals that were MDHs as of the September 30, 2013 expiration of the MDH program, subject to the timing considerations we have described previously:
Finally, we note that hospitals continue to be bound by § 412.108(b)(4)(i) through (iii) to report a change in the circumstances under which the status was approved. Thus, if a hospital's MDH status has been extended and it no longer meets the requirements for MDH status, it is required under § 412.108(b)(4)(i) through (iii) to make such a report to its MAC. Additionally, under the regulations at § 412.108(b)(5), Medicare contractors are required to evaluate on an ongoing basis whether or not a hospital continues to qualify for MDH status.
Program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal. A provider affected by the MDH program extension will receive a notice from its MAC detailing its status in light of the MDH program extension. In this interim final rule with comment period, we are making conforming changes to the regulations text at § 412.108(a)(1) and (c)(2)(iii) to reflect the changes made by section 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act of 2013.
We also note that, in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50620 through 50647), we implemented the changes to the payment adjustment methodology for Medicare disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs) required under section 3133 of the Affordable Care Act, which includes the new “uncompensated care payment” that began in FY 2014. In that same final rule (78 FR 50645), we adopted a policy of including an interim uncompensated care payment in the payment for each hospital discharge (that is, distributing interim uncompensated care payments on a per-discharge basis). At cost report settlement, we reconcile the total amounts paid on a per-discharge basis during the Federal fiscal year with the amount of the uncompensated care payment calculated for each hospital.
SCHs are paid based on their hospital-specific rate from certain specified base years or the Federal rate, whichever yields the greatest aggregate payment for the hospital's cost reporting period. In the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50644), we established a policy of including the uncompensated care payment amount as part of the Federal rate payment in the comparison of payments under the hospital-specific rate and the Federal rate for SCHs. Uncompensated care payments to MDHs were not explicitly addressed in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule because, prior to the enactment of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, the MDH program was to expire at the end of FY 2013.
Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Act provides that, for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2006, MDHs are paid based on the Federal rate or, if higher, the Federal rate plus 75 percent of the amount by which the Federal rate is exceeded by the updated hospital-specific rate from certain specified base years (see 76 FR 51684). The “Federal rate” used in the MDH payment methodology is the same “Federal rate” that is used in the SCH payment methodology. Accordingly, consistent with the policy established for SCHs in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in determining MDH payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 and before April 1, 2014, a pro rata share of the uncompensated care payment amount for that period will be included as part of the Federal rate payment in the comparison of payments under the hospital-specific rate and the Federal rate. That is, in making this comparison at cost report settlement, we will include the pro rata share of the uncompensated care payment amount that reflects the period of time the hospital was paid under the MDH program for its discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2013 and before April 1, 2014. Consistent with the policy established for hospitals with Medicare cost reporting periods that span more than one Federal fiscal year in the interim final rule that appeared in the October 3, 2013
Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act provides for an extension of the MDH program through March 31, 2014, only. Therefore, beginning April 1, 2014, all hospitals that previously qualified for MDH status will no longer have MDH status. At that time, the general policy and payment methodology will be the same as discussed in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 50648).
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
None of the processes or effective date requirements apply, however, when the rule in question is interpretive, a general statement of policy, or a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice. They also do not apply when the statute establishes rules to be applied, leaving no discretion or gaps for an agency to fill in through rulemaking.
In addition, an agency may waive notice and comment rulemaking, as well as any delay in effective date, when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment on the rule as well the effective date delay are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In cases where an agency finds good cause, the agency must incorporate a statement of this finding and its reasons in the rule issued.
The Pathway for SGR Reform Act requires the agency make the changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and the MDH program set forth in this interim final rule with comment period for an additional 6 months, effective October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014. We are conforming our regulations to specific statutory requirements contained in sections 1105 and 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act or that directly result from those statutory requirements and informing the public of the procedures and practices the agency will follow to ensure compliance with those statutory provisions. To the extent that notice and comment rulemaking or a delay in effective date or both would otherwise apply, we believe that there is good cause to waive such requirements and to implement the requirements of section 1105 and 1106 of the Pathway to SGR Reform Act through an interim final rule with comment period. Specifically, we find it unnecessary to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in this instance because this interim final rule with comment period sets forth the requirements for the extension of the temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and the MDH program as prescribed by the Pathway to SGR Reform Act. As the changes outlined in this interim final rule with comment period have already taken effect, it would also be impracticable to undertake notice and comment rulemaking. For the reasons outlined, we find good cause to waive the notice of proposed rulemaking for the requirements for the extension of the temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals and the MDH program as prescribed by the Pathway to SGR Reform Act and issue these provisions on an interim final basis. Even though we are waiving notice of proposed rulemaking requirements and are issuing these provisions on an interim basis, we are providing a 60-day public comment period.
For these reasons, we also find that a waiver of any delay in effective date, if it were otherwise applicable, is necessary to comply with the requirements of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures as well as any delay in effective date.
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for regulatory actions with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). The changes announced in this interim final rule with comment period are “economically” significant, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore we have prepared a RIA, that to the best of our ability, presents the costs and benefits of this interim final rule with comment period. In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this interim final rule with comment period has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small government jurisdictions. We estimate that most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities as that term is used in the RFA. The great majority of hospitals and most other health care providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $7.5 to $34.5 million in any 1 year). (For details on the latest standard for health care providers, we refer readers to page 33 of the Table of Small Business Size Standards at the Small Business Administration's Web site at
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. With the exception of hospitals located in certain New England counties, for purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we now define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of an urban area and has fewer than 100 beds.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This interim final rule with comment period will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This interim final rule with comment period will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.
Although this interim final rule with comment period merely reflects the implementation of two provisions of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013, we nevertheless prepared this impact analysis in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of these changes are fully understood. The following analysis, in conjunction with the remainder of this document, demonstrates that this interim final rule with comment period is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in Executive Order 12866 and 13563, the RFA, and section 1102(b) of the Act. The provisions of this interim final rule with comment period will positively affect payments to a substantial number of small rural hospitals and providers, as well as other classes of hospitals and providers, and the effects on some hospitals and providers may be significant. The impact analysis, which discusses the effect on total payments to IPPS hospitals and providers, is presented in this section.
This interim final rule with comment period is necessary to update the FY 2014 IPPS final payment policies to reflect changes required by the implementation of two provisions of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act. Section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals through March 31, 2014. Section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act extends the MDH program through March 31, 2014. As noted previously, program guidance on the systems implementation of these provisions, including changes to PRICER software used to make payments, will be announced in an upcoming transmittal.
The FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule included an impact analysis for the changes to the IPPS included in that rule. This interim final rule with comment period updates those impacts to the IPPS to reflect the changes made by sections 1105 and 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act. Since these sections were not budget neutral, the overall estimates for hospitals have changed from our estimates that were published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 51037). We estimate that the changes in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, in conjunction with the changes included in this interim final rule with comment period, will result in an approximate $1.44 billion increase in total payments to IPPS hospitals relative to FY 2013 rather than the $1.2 billion increase we projected in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 51037).
The impact analysis reflects the change in estimated payments to IPPS hospitals in FY 2014 as a result of the implementation of sections 1105 and 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act relative to estimated FY 2014 payments to IPPS hospitals that were published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule (78 FR 51037). As described later in this regulatory impact analysis, FY 2014 IPPS payments to hospitals affected by sections 1105 and 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act are projected to increase by $227 million (relative to the FY 2014 payments estimated for these hospitals for the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule). Therefore, we project that, on the average, overall IPPS payments in FY 2014 for all hospitals will increase by approximately an additional 0.24 percent as a result of the estimated $227 million increase in payments due to the provisions in the Pathway for SGR Reform Act compared to the previous estimate of FY 2014 payments to all IPPS hospitals published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule.
The 6-month extension, through March 31, 2014, of the temporary changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals (originally provided for by the Affordable Care Act for FYs 2011 and 2012 and extended through FY 2013 under section 605 of the ATRA) as provided for under section 1105 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act is a non-budget neutral payment provision. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act expanded the definition of low-volume hospital and modified the methodology for determining the payment adjustment for hospitals meeting that definition for FYs 2011 and 2012, and the provisions of the ATRA provided for an additional year extension, through FY 2013.
Prior to the enactment of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, beginning October 1, 2013, the low-volume hospital definition and payment adjustment methodology was to return to the statutory requirements that were in effect prior to the amendments made by the Affordable Care Act and the ATRA. With the additional 6-month extension, through March 31, 2014, provided for by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act, based on FY 2012 claims data (March 2013 update of the MedPAR file), we estimate that approximately 600 hospitals will now qualify as a low-volume hospital through March 31, 2014. We project that these hospitals will experience an increase in payments of approximately $161 million as compared to our previous estimates of payments to these hospitals for FY 2014 published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule.
The extension of the MDH program through March 31, 2014 as provided for under section 1106 of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act is a non-budget neutral payment provision. Hospitals that qualify as a MDHs receive the higher of operating IPPS payments made under the Federal standardized amount or the payments made under the Federal standardized amount plus 75 percent of the difference between the Federal standardized amount and the hospital-specific rate (a hospital-specific cost-based rate). Because this provision is not budget neutral, we estimate that the extension of this payment provision will result in a 0.1 percent increase in payments overall. Prior to the extension of the MDH program, there were 198 MDHs, of which 118 were estimated to be paid under the blended payment of the Federal standardized amount and hospital-specific rate in FY 2013 (78 FR 51019). Because those 118 MDHs will now receive the blended payment (that is, the Federal standardized amount plus 75 percent of the difference between the Federal standardized amount and the hospital-specific rate) for the first half of FY 2014 (until April 1, 2014), we estimate that those hospitals will experience an overall increase in payments of approximately $66 million as compared to our previous estimates of payments to these hospitals for FY 2014 published in the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule.
This interim final rule with comment period provides descriptions of the statutory provisions that are addressed and identifies policies for implementing these provisions. Due to the prescriptive nature of the statutory provisions, no alternatives were considered.
As required by OMB Circular A–4 (available at
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Medicare, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this interim final rule with comment period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is amending 42 CFR Chapter IV as follows:
Sections 1102, 1862, and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395y, and 1395hh).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rules; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the final rules that appeared in the August 19, 2013
This correcting document is effective on March 18, 2014.
Cindy Tourison (410) 786–1093.
In FR Doc. 2013–18956, which appeared in the August 19, 2013
On page 50695, in the table entitled “Finalized Performance Standards for Certain FY 2016 Hospital VBP Program Outcome Domain Measures,” the performance standards for the PSI–90 measure are not consistent with the FY 2016 performance standards that we finalized for that measure. We also note that we have made similar corrections to the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
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
In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical errors in certain HVBP tables but does not make substantive changes to the HVBP policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the HVBP tables accurately reflect the policies previously adopted for the HVBP Program.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate table values in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our HVBP policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our HVBP policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policy for calculating certain HVBP table values that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these HVBP policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
In FR Doc. 2013–18956 of August 19, 2013 (78 FR 50496), make the following corrections:
1. On page 50695, lower fourth of the page, in the table entitled “FINALIZED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN FY 2016 HOSPITAL VBP PROGRAM OUTCOME DOMAIN MEASURES,” the performance standards for the PSI–90 measure are corrected to read as follows:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the final rule that appeared in the August 31, 2012
This correcting document is effective on March 18, 2014.
Cindy Tourison (410) 786–1093.
In FR Doc. 2012–19079, which appeared in the August 31, 2012
On page 53602 and 53603, we inadvertently included Medicare Advantage (MA) claims in our calculation of the final performance standards that apply to the PSI–90 measure for the FY 2015 and FY 2016 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program.
We also note that we have made similar corrections to the FY 2014 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule and these corrections are published elsewhere in this issue of the
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
In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the APA notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This correcting document corrects technical errors in certain HVBP tables but does not make substantive changes to the HVBP policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the HVBP tables accurately reflect the policies adopted in that final rule.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive appropriate corrected table values in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our HVBP policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our HVBP policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the policy for calculating certain HVBP table values that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2013 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these HVBP policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.
In FR Doc. 2012–19079 of August 31, 2012 (77 FR 53258), make the following corrections:
1. On pages 53601 and 53602, in the table entitled “FINAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE FY 2015 HOSPITAL VBP PROGRAM CLINICAL PROCESS OF CARE, OUTCOME, AND EFFICIENCY DOMAINS,” the performance standards for the PSI–90 Measure are corrected to read as follows:
2. On page 53603, in the table entitled “FINAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FY 2016 HOSPITAL VBP PROGRAMS OUTCOME DOMAIN: MORTALITY/PSI COMPOSITE MEASURES,” the performance standards for the PSI–90 Measure are corrected to read as follows:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Final rule.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to adopt provisions contained in certain widely used or longstanding special permits and certain competent authority approvals (“approvals”) that have established safety records. Special permits allow a company or individual to package or ship a hazardous material in a manner that varies from the regulations provided an equivalent level of safety is maintained. An approval is a written consent (document) required under an international standard (i.e., International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI)), or is specifically provided for in the HMR, and is issued by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. These revisions are intended to provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility offered in special permits and approvals and eliminate the need for numerous renewal requests, reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.
This regulation is effective April 17, 2014. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 17, 2014.
Steven Andrews, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366–8553, or, Diane LaValle, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Approvals and Permits Division, (202) 366–4535, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
PHMSA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171–180) to adopt several long standing special permits and competent authority approvals into the HMR. The identified special permits and competent authority approvals have a long history of safety. Special permits allow a company or individual to package or ship a hazardous material in a manner that varies from the HMR provided an equivalent level of safety is maintained. A competent authority (CA) approval is a written consent (document) required under an international standard (i.e., International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code or International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI)) and is issued by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
In 2009, an audit of the Special Permits program by the Office of the Inspector General identified a need for an ongoing review of all open special permits with an outlook towards identifying those that should be made part of the HMR to reduce the overall economic burden to both affected industry and the government. Three rulemakings, HM–233A; PHMSA–2009–0289 (75 FR 27205), HM–245; PHMSA–2010–0017 (76 FR 5483), and HM–216B; PHMSA–2010–0018 (77 FR 37962) have successfully codified certain special permits into the HMR. These revisions provide wider access to the regulatory flexibility offered in special permits and eliminate the need for numerous renewal requests, thus reducing paperwork burdens and facilitating commerce while maintaining an appropriate level of safety.
This Final Rule, HM–233C, continues this initiative by adopting several other long-standing special permits and competent authority approvals with proven safety records into the HMR. The special permits affected by the final rule represent variances from current regulations on topics categorized as follows:
• Limited quantities of liquids and solids containing ethyl alcohol.
• Transportation of solid coal tar pitch compounds.
• Transportation of certain ammonia solutions in UN1H1 and UN6HA1 drums.
• Transportation of spent bleaching earth.
• Requalification of non-DOT specification cylinders in life-saving appliances.
• Use of regulated medical waste containers displaying alternative markings.
• Adoption of special permits to harmonize with FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
The economic impact of the final rule can thus be summarized as follows:
NET COST: $0. Currently, industry must apply for a special permit in order to ship materials as described in this final rule. Adoption of these special permits into the HMR will reduce the burden on industry by no longer requiring industry to apply for a special permit to ship these materials. Therefore, this final rule does not impose any new costs to industry.
NET BENEFITS: $9,900 per year. (Averaged over 10 years, at a 7% annual
discount rate.)
In addition to general positive economic impacts noted above, this final rule will eliminate the need for
PHMSA is amending the HMR to adopt certain requirements based on existing special permits (SPs) issued by PHMSA under 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart B (§§ 107.101 to 107.127) and certain approvals issued under 49 CFR Part 107, Subpart D (§§ 107.401 to 107.405). A special permit sets forth alternative requirements—or a variance—to the requirements in the HMR in a way that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level required under the regulations or that is consistent with the public interest. See 49 CFR 107.105(d). Congress expressly authorized DOT to issue these variances in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (US Code: 49 U.S.C. 5109–5127) as amended. An approval is a written consent (document) required under an international standard (i.e., IMDG Code, ICAO TI), or is authorized in a specific section of the HMR and is issued by the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
The HMR generally are performance-oriented regulations, which provide the regulated community with some flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and built into the regulations. Innovation is the strength of our economy and the hazardous materials community is a leader in developing new materials and technologies and innovative ways of moving materials. Special permits enable the hazardous materials industry to quickly, effectively, and safely integrate new products and technologies into production and the transportation stream. Thus, special permits provide a mechanism for testing new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness. Hazardous materials transported under the terms of a special permit must achieve a level of safety at least equal to the level of safety achieved when transported under the HMR or that is consistent with the public interest. Implementation of new technologies and operational techniques may enhance safety. Special permits also reduce the volume and complexity of the HMR by addressing unique or infrequent transportation situations that would be difficult to accommodate in regulations intended for use by a wide range of shippers and carriers.
PHMSA conducts ongoing reviews of special permits to identify widely used and longstanding special permits with established safety records for conversion into regulations of broader applicability. Converting these special permits into regulations reduces paperwork burdens and facilitates commerce while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. Additionally, adoption of special permits as rules of general applicability provides wider access to the benefits and regulatory flexibility of the provisions granted in the special permits. Factors that influence whether or not a specific special permit is a candidate for regulatory action include: the safety record for hazardous materials transported or operations conducted under a special permit; potential broad application of a special permit; suitability of provisions in the special permit for adoption into the HMR; rulemaking activity in related areas; and agency priorities. During PHMSA's analysis of the suitability for adoption of each special permit, PHMSA performed a search of incident reports from the previous 10 years to determine whether there were any safety issues related to each special permit.
The special permits addressed in this final rule have hundreds of party status holders. Party status is granted to a person who intends to offer for transportation or transport a hazardous material or perform an activity subject to the HMR in the same manner as the original applicant.
These amendments to the HMR will eliminate the need for approximately 464 current holders to reapply for renewal of 20 special permits. Adoption of special permits into the HMR eliminates significant paperwork burdens. As a condition of a special permit issued by PHMSA and depending on the provisions of the special permit, a copy of each special permit must be: (1) maintained at each facility where an operation is conducted or a packaging is manufactured under a special permit; (2) maintained at each facility where a package is offered or re-offered for transportation under a special permit; and (3) in some cases, carried aboard each transport vehicle used to transport a hazardous material under a special permit.
The HMR also allows for PHMSA to grant approvals to companies or organizations for the manufacturing of packages in accordance with the HMR. PHMSA has identified approvals that have an established safety record to adopt into the HMR. The approvals PHMSA identified for conversion into the HMR have an established safety record and warrant adoption into regulations of broader applicability. Converting these approvals into regulations reduces paperwork burdens and facilitates commerce while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. A copy of each approval must be maintained at each facility where a packaging is manufactured under this approval. The adoption of component authority approvals eliminates the renewal and maintenance requirements that were previously required. Additionally, adoption of approvals as rules of general applicability provides wider access to the benefits and regulatory flexibility of the provisions granted in the approvals. Factors that influence whether a specific approval is a candidate for regulatory action include: the safety record, whether broadly applicable, related rulemakings, and agency priorities.
Section 171.7 provides a listing of all standards incorporated by reference into the HMR. For this rulemaking, PHMSA is revising the entry for the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) Pamphlet C–6, Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders, 1993 to add a reference to § 172.102, (Special Provisions). This standard has a well-established and documented safety history; its revision will maintain the high safety standard currently achieved under the HMR.
PHMSA would like to note that SP 13124 was accidently mentioned in this section in the NPRM. It was not PHMSA's intention to mention this special permit in this rulemaking. Special permit 13124 is no longer needed based on a final rule published in the
• DOT–SP 9275—Authorization for the transportation in commerce of certain limited quantities of liquids and
• DOT–SP 11263—Authorization for the transportation of Class 9 solid coal pitch compounds in non-specification open-top or closed-top sift proof metal cans or fiber drums.
• DOT–SP 11836—Authorization for the transportation in commerce of UN1H1 and UN6HA1 drums containing ammonia solutions that do not meet certain requirements contained in §§ 173.24 and 173.24a.
• DOT–SP 12134—Authorization of exceptions for spent bleaching earth (Division 4.2 PG III)
• DOT–SP 12825—Authorization to transport Life-saving appliances, self-inflating, containing non-specification steel cylinders between a vessel and an authorized facility for servicing.
• DOT–SP 14479—Authorization for the use of alternative shipping names and marking requirements for regulated medical wastes.
• Special Permits for Harmonization with the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012”—PHMSA is adding an exception to the HMR for Oxygen cylinders and other Oxidizing cylinders transported aboard aircraft within the state of Alaska. This language will make several existing special permits no longer necessary.
This includes the following special permits: 14903, 14908, 15062, 15075, 15076, 15077, 15078, 15079, 15092, 15094, 15095, and 15143.
• CA2005120010—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the measured basis weight in the initial design qualification test report.
• CA20060660005—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN5M1 and UN5M2 multi-wall paper bags with individual paper wall basis weights that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weights reported in the initial design qualification test report.
• CA2006060006—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weights that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design.
• CA2006010012—Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weight that vary by plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report.
• PHMSA is revising this section to allow for approval holders applying for a timely renewal to continue using their approval after the expiration date if they apply within 60 days of the expiration dates.
In response to the NPRM, PHMSA received 36 comments. A majority of these commenters were in support of the Fibre Box Associations comments to increase the packaging variation of +/− 5% to +/− 10%. Other commenters mostly supported modifying the proposed adoption of SP 9275 to not include the requirement to mark packages with “contains ethyl alcohol.” The commenters and the docket number were the comments are located are listed below:
DOT–SP 9275 authorizes the transportation in commerce of certain beverages, foods, cosmetics, medicines, medical screening solutions and concentrates containing ethyl alcohol and exempts these shipments from the provisions of HMR. This special permit has been in effect since at least 1985 and had been utilized by hundreds of companies. However, on August 18, 2011 PHMSA found that SP 9275 did not provide a level of safety at least equivalent to the HMR due to the lack of hazard communications markings. This was discovered during PHMSA's review of all special permits as required by the DOT Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to ensure all special permits met an equivalent level of safety. PHMSA issued a revised version of SP 9275 to address the lack of hazard communication markings on August 18, 2011.
In response to the NPRM, PHMSA received several comments on how to adopt this special permit. Several commenters opposed the requirement for the shipments under the proposed section to require the words “contains ethyl alcohol” on the outside of the package. After careful consideration of these comments, PHMSA is adopting the special permit without requiring the words “contains ethyl alcohol” for shipments of ethyl alcohol in quantities not exceeding 8 fluid ounces in glass containers and not exceeding 16 fluid ounces in non-glass containers. For shipments of ethyl alcohol (not more than 70% concentration) in quantities greater than 8 fluid ounces in glass containers and greater than 16 ounces in non-glass containers, the words “contains ethyl alcohol” are required on the outside of the package. Shipments of ethyl alcohol in quantities of 8 ounces or less are not required to be marked with the words `contains ethyl alcohol'.” (This would apply to both greater than and less than 70% concentration.)
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of SP 9275 as revised on August 18, 2011 with modification. PHMSA is adopting this special permit to allow certain limited quantities of ethyl alcohol to be excepted from the applicable provisions of the HMR that require the packages to be marked with the words “Contains Ethyl Alcohol.” PHMSA is adding § 173.150(g) to allow for the shipment of limited quantities of ethyl alcohol of not exceeding 8 fluid ounces in glass containers and not exceeding 16 fluid ounces for non-glass containers without the term “contains ethyl alcohol” marked on the outside of the package. Packages containing 8 fluid ounces to 1 gallon shipped under this section require the marking “contains ethyl alcohol” on the outside of the package.
DOT–SP 11263 authorizes the transportation of solid coal tar pitch compounds, Class 9, in open-top and closed-top sift-proof metal cans or fiber drums. The special permit has been in effect since 1994 and has been utilized by 5 holders with an acceptable safety performance. In addition, PHMSA has no reported incidents over the past 10 years involving this special permit. The American Trucking Association (ATA) supports adoption of this special permit in response to the NPRM. PHMSA received no negative comments regarding this special permit in the NPRM.
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of DOT–SP 11263 into the HMR by amending the entry in § 172.101, The Hazardous Materials Table (HMT), for Environmentally hazardous substances, solids, n.o.s., UN 3077, by adding a new Special Provision N91 in Column 7. In addition, in § 172.102 new Special Provision N91 is added in appropriate sequence specifically authorizing the use of a non-DOT specification sift-proof, non-bulk, metal can with or without lid, or a non-DOT specification sift-proof, non-bulk fiber drum, with or without lid. The fiber drum is required to be fabricated with a three ply wall, as a minimum. The coal tar pitch compound must remain in a solid mass during transportation.
DOT–SP 11836 authorizes the transportation of specific ammonia solutions in specification UN1H1 drums, UN3H1 jerricans, and UN6HA1 composite packagings that do not meet the provisions in §§ 173.24(g) and 173.24a(b)(2). Specific operational controls are required in lieu of compliance with these two requirements. This special permit has been in effect since 1997 and has been utilized by at least 61 holders with an acceptable safety performance. In addition, PHMSA has no reported incidents over the past 10 years involving this special permit. American Trucking Association (ATA) supports adoption of this special permit in response to the NPRM. The National Association of Chemical Distributors supports adoption of this special permit into the HMR. PHMSA received no negative comments regarding this special permit in the NPRM.
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of DOT–SP 11836 into the HMR by amending the entry in the HMT for “Ammonia solutions,
DOT–SP 12134 authorizes the transportation of spent bleaching earth as a Division 4.2, solid, PG III, exempt from the provisions of the HMR, except as specifically required by the special permit. Packagings authorized under the
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of DOT–SP 12134 into the HMR by amending the entry in the HMT for “self-heating solid, organic, n.o.s. (spent bleaching earth), UN 3088”, by adding a new Special Provision, B116 in Column 7. In addition, in § 172.102 new Special Provision B116 is added in appropriate sequence specifically authorizing the use of non-specification, sift-proof dump or hopper type motor vehicles, and sift-proof roll-on/roll-off bulk bins, which must be covered by a tarpaulin, metal cover, or equivalent means. The material also is subject to operational controls, including not exceeding a temperature of 55°C (130 °F) during transportation, not exceeding a transportation time of 24 hours, and drivers transporting spent bleaching earth must be trained in the properties and hazards of the spent bleaching earth and the actions required to mitigate the self-heating properties of the material that may occur during the transportation.
DOT–SP 12825 authorizes the transport between a vessel and a U.S. Coast Guard approved inflatable life raft servicing facility of life-saving appliances, self- inflating, containing non-DOT specification steel cylinders for the purpose of the servicing of such life-saving appliances. Specific operational controls are specified in the below listed Special Provision. This special permit has been in effect since 2001 and has been utilized by at least 54 holders with acceptable safety performance. In addition, PHMSA has no reported incidents since 2001 involving this special permit. PHMSA received a comment from the International Vessel Operators Dangerous Goods Association, Inc. (IVODGA) supporting adoption of SP 12825 into the HMR. PHMSA did not receive any negative comments in response to the NPRM.
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of DOT–SP 12825 into the HMR by revising the entry in the HMT for Life-saving appliances, self-inflating, UN 2990, by adding a new Special Provision 338 in Column 7. In addition, in § 172.102, new Special Provision 338 is added in appropriate sequence requiring that Life-saving appliances, self-inflating, UN 2990 being shipped between a vessel and a U.S. Coast Guard approved life raft servicing facility only be subject to the requirements of this special provision. A material meeting the requirements of this special provision is not otherwise be subject to the HMR.
DOT–SP 14479 authorizes the continued use of regulated medical waste containers manufactured before October 1, 2006 and marked with an alternative shipping name for UN 3291, “Regulated medical waste, n.o.s.” It also allows for orientation arrows that deviate from the prescribed color specification in the HMR. This special permit has been in effect since 2007 and has been utilized by at least 22 holders. In addition, PHMSA has no reported incidents since 2007 involving this special permit. PHMSA received comments from the Healthcare Waste Institute and Stericycle Inc. supporting adoption of this special permit. PHMSA received no negative comments regarding adoption of this special permit.
Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of DOT–SP 14479 into the HMR by amending the entry in the HMT for Regulated Medical Waste, n.o.s., UN 3088, by adding a new Special Provision, 337 in Column 7. Special Provision 337 allows for the use of regulated waste containers marked with the alternative shipping name of Regulated medical waste, UN3291 and black or white orientation arrows that deviate from the prescribed specifications in § 172.312(a)(2).
Section 824 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 includes a provision that allows for exceptions for cylinders of compressed oxygen or other oxidizing gases transported in the State of Alaska aboard aircraft. By adopting this statutory exception into the HMR, the following special permits will no longer be necessary: 14903, 14908, 15062, 15075, 15076, 15077, 15078, 15079, 15092, 15094, 15095, and 15143. These special permits all provide exceptions for the transportation of Oxygen and other Division 2.2 Oxidizing gases for transportation aboard aircraft in the State of Alaska. PHMSA received no comments regarding this special permit in the NPRM. Therefore, PHSMA is adopting the terms of these special permits in § 175.34.
This approval authorizes the manufacturing, marking, and selling of UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the measured basis weight in the initial design qualification test report. This approval was issued in 2009 and has demonstrated an acceptable safety performance. PHMSA has no reported incidents involving this approval. PHMSA received several comments in support of comments made by the Fibre Box Association to increase the variation from plus or minus 5% to plus or minus 10%. However, PHMSA does not have the historical data to support an increase in this variation to plus or minus 10%. Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of CA2005120010 as proposed into the HMR in § 178.516(b)(7).
This approval authorizes the manufacture, mark, and sale of UN5M1 and UN5M2 multi-wall paper bags with individual paper wall basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weights reported in the initial design qualification test report. This approval was issued in 2009 and has demonstrated an acceptable safety performance. PHMSA has no reported incidents involving this approval. PHMSA received several comments in support of comments made by the Fibre Box Association to increase the variation from plus or
This approval authorizes the manufacture, mark, and sale of UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design. This approval was issued in 2009 and has demonstrated an acceptable safety performance. PHMSA received several comments in support of comments made by the Fibre Box Association to increase the variation from plus or minus 5% to plus or minus 10%. However, PHMSA does not have the historical data to support an increase in this variation to plus or minus 10%. Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of CA2006060006 in § 178.516(b)(7).
This competent authority authorizes the manufacture, mark, and sale of UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have individual containerboard basis weight that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report. This approval was issued in 2006 and has demonstrated an acceptable safety performance. PHMSA received several comments in support of comments made by the Fibre Box Association to increase the variation from plus or minus 5% to plus or minus 10%. However, PHMSA does not have the historical data to support an increase in this variation to plus or minus 10%. Therefore, PHMSA is adopting the terms of CA2006010012 in § 178.516(b)(7).
PHMSA is revising this section to allow approval holders applying for a renewal to continue using their approval after the expiration date if they apply at least 60 days before the expiration date. PHMSA did not receive any comments on this proposal and, therefore, it will be adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
This Final Rule is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. 49 U.S.C. 5117(a) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue a special permit from a regulation prescribed in 5103(b), 5104, 5110, or 5112 of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law to a person transporting, or causing to be transported, hazardous material in a way that achieves a safety level at least equal to the safety level required under the law, or consistent with the public interest, if a required safety level does not exist. This final rule amends the regulations by adopting provisions from certain widely used and longstanding special permits that have established a history of safety and which may, therefore, be converted into the regulations for general use.
This final rule is considered a non-significant regulatory action under section 3(f) and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule is considered a non-significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034]. Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review of September 30, 1993. By building off of each other, these two Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.”
Executive Order 13610 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens) reaffirmed the goals of Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) issued January 18, 2011, and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) issued September 30, 1993. Executive Order 13610 directs agencies to prioritize “those initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens while protecting public health, welfare, safety, and our environment.” Executive Order 13610 further instructs agencies to give consideration to the cumulative effects of their regulations, including cumulative burdens, and prioritize reforms that will significantly reduce burdens.
In this final rule, PHMSA is amending the HMR to adopt alternatives this agency has permitted under widely used and longstanding special permits and approvals with established safety records that we have determined meet the safety criteria for inclusion in the HMR. Adoption of these special permits and approvals into regulations of general applicability provides shippers and carriers with additional flexibility to comply with established safety requirements, thereby reducing transportation costs and increasing productivity. In addition, the final rule reduces the paperwork burden on industry and this agency resulting from putting an end to the need for renewal applications for special permits. Taken together, the provisions of this final rule promotes the continued safe transportation of hazardous materials while reducing transportation costs for the industry and administrative costs for the agency.
The impact of this final rule is presumed to be minor as no new costs are imposed upon any stakeholders and those that currently hold special permits and CAs will find some relief from regulatory review for current practices. This final rule makes provisions that are currently approved in certain special permits available to all businesses operating in the U.S. without needing to submit party-to special permit applications to PHMSA, and current permit holders will no longer need renewals. Over the past decade, approximately 464 companies have applied for and/or renewed the special permits included in this final rule. Many of these special permits have had positive economic impacts by allowing companies to be accepted from requirements in the HMR when shipping certain quantities/types of materials or by allowing the use of less expensive non-specification packages when certain provisions are met. It is difficult to quantify the savings these special permits have allowed, but it should be noted that these savings are extended to other firms that would make use of the provisions once adopted into regulations. PHMSA calculates that this rulemaking results in a paperwork reduction that, on average, saves each applicant $39.50. PHMSA estimates that over a 10-year period there will be an estimated benefit total
This final rule adopts four approvals into the HMR. This allows manufacturers of affected hazardous materials packaging to continue manufacturing packages without the need to renew their approvals. Adoption of the four approvals results in a one-time total economic benefit of $158. The renewal cycle for approvals can vary based on the applicant needs and regulatory authority, but are typically renewed every five years. At both 3 and 7 percent annual discount, this yields over $270 in benefits. Total benefits represent a small but positive sum (between $46,000 and $52,000) over 10 years affecting approximately 140 entities.
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule preempts state, local and Indian tribe requirements but does not create any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) preempting state, local and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or
(5) The designing, manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or testing a package, container or packaging component that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.
This final rule addresses covered subject items (2), (3), and (5) and would preempt any State, local, or Indian tribe requirements not meeting the “substantively the same” standard. Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) that if PHMSA issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, PHMSA must determine and publish in the
This final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential impacts of draft rules on small entities are properly considered.
PHMSA has an approved information collection under OMB Control Number 2137–0051, “Rulemaking, Special Permits, and Preemption Requirements.” This final rule results in a decrease in the annual burden and costs under this information collection due to the changes that adopts provisions contained in certain widely used or longstanding special permits that have an established safety record.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.
This final rule identifies a revised information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this final rule. PHMSA has developed burden estimates to reflect changes in this final rule. PHMSA estimates that
PHMSA received no comments on the information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining these requirements for approval in the NPRM.
Requests for a copy of this information collection should be directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH–11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone (202) 366–8553.
Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3 million or more to either state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, requires that federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requires federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering (1) the need for the proposed action (2) alternatives to the proposed action (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b).
The purpose and need of this rulemaking is to adopt certain approvals related to air transportation in Alaska and widely used special permits or those with an established safety record into the HMR for universal use. PHMSA is working to reduce the number of special permits to reduce administrative burden to both the government and private industry while affording the benefits of certain special permits that have been vetted for safety to a wider audience.
This rule follows an FAA statutory provision that requires PHMSA to adopt certain special permits into the HMR. Section 824 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 includes a provision that allows for exceptions for cylinders of compressed oxygen or other oxidizing gases transported in the State of Alaska aboard aircraft. These special permits all provided exceptions for the transportation of Oxygen and other Division 2.2 Oxidizing gases for transportation aboard aircraft in the state of Alaska.
The need for hazardous materials to support essential services and industry means transportation of highly hazardous materials is necessary. PHMSA conducted a periodic review of Special Permits that have a long history of safety. After this review PHMSA determined that certain special permits were candidates for adoption into the HMR.
Special Permit 9275 authorizes the transportation in commerce of certain consumer products of liquids and solids containing ethyl alcohol and exempts these shipments from the provisions of HMR. This Special Permit is used frequently by the cosmetics industry to move very small quantities of ethyl alcohol contained in consumer products. After reviewing the history of this Special Permit, PHMSA found an adequate safety record for adoption into the HMR.
Special Permit 11263 authorizes the transportation of solid coal tar pitch compounds, Class 9, in open-top and closed-top sift-proof metal cans or fiber drums. Coal tar pitch is a black or dark-brown amorphous residue produced by the distillation or heat treatment of coal tar. It is a solid at room temperature and exhibits a broad softening range instead of a defined melting temperature. Among other uses, coal tar pitch is used as a base for coatings and paint, in roofing and paving, and as a binder in asphalt products. This Special Permit authorizes the use of a specification package with a proven safety record in order to mitigate a potential release of coal tar pitch compounds. During a review of long standing Special Permits, PHMSA found that this Special Permit had an adequate safety record and provided an equivalent level of safety to the HMR.
Special Permit 11836 authorizes the transportation of specific ammonia solutions in specification UN1H1 drums, UN3H1 jerricans, and UN6HA1 composite packagings. Ammonia solutions are a clear colorless liquid consisting of ammonia dissolved in water which is corrosive to tissue and metals. This Special Permit is utilizes the use of specification packages with a proven safety record in order to mitigate a potential release of ammonia solutions. During a review of long standing Special Permits, PHMSA found that this Special Permit had an adequate safety record and provided an equivalent level of safety to the HMR.
Special Permit 12134 authorizes the transportation of spent bleaching earth as a Division 4.2, solid, PG III, exempt from the provisions of the HMR. Spent bleaching earth, is a solid waste from the edible oil industry can be converted to a clay-carbon adsorbent for potential reuse in the adsorptive cleansing of vegetable oils. This Special Permit utilizes the use of a specification package with a proven safety record that will mitigate a potential release of spent bleach earth material. During a review of long standing Special Permits, PHMSA found that this Special Permit had an adequate safety record and provided an equivalent level of safety to the HMR.
Special Permit 12825 authorizes the transportation of life-saving appliances, self-inflating, that contain non-DOT specification steel cylinders for the purpose of movement between a vessel and a U.S. Coast Guard approved inflatable life raft servicing facility in conjunction with the servicing of such life-saving appliances. Adoption of this
Special Permit 14479 authorizes the continued use of regulated medical waste containers manufactured before October 1, 2006 and marked with an alternative shipping name for UN 3291 and orientation arrows. The packages are used in the medical waste industry to ship low hazard medical waste to disposal facilities. Adoption of this Special Permit allows the medical waste industry to continue using packages authorizes safely transport medical waste in these pacakging. During a review of long standing Special Permits, PHMSA found that this Special Permit had an adequate safety record and provided an equivalent level of safety to the HMR.
Information about benefits of this final rulemaking action can be found in the preamble (i.e., “Overview of Proposed Amendments) to this rulemaking. The alternatives considered in the analysis include (1) the proposed action, that is, adoption of the proposed special permits as amendments to the HMR; (2) adoption of some subset of the proposed special permits (i.e., only some of the proposed special permits) as amendments to the HMR; and (3) the “no action” alternative, meaning that none of the proposed special permits would be adopted into the HMR.
The selected alternative amends certain HMR requirements including methods for packaging, describing, and transporting hazardous materials that are currently permitted under widely used special permits with established safety records for inclusion in the HMR. This final rule allows the transportation of the following hazardous materials and packages in accordance with the following former special permits in ways that vary from certain other provisions in the HMR:
The adoption of this Special Permit will allow for “UN 3291, Regulated medical waste, n.o.s.,” to be shipped using alternative shipping names and marking requirements for regulated medical wastes. Use of this alternative shipping name and marking requirements is not expected to have any negative effects on safety or the environment.
The adoption of this Special Permit allows for the shipment of non-flammable compressed gases in non-DOT specification steel cylinders for use in life-saving appliances. Allowing the uses of non-DOT specification cylinders in life saving appliances is not expected to have any effects on safety or the environment.
The adoption of this Special Permit allows consumer products of liquids and solids containing ethyl alcohol to be exempted from the HMR. These low hazard, low quantity packages containing ethyl alcohol are not expected to have any negative effect on safety or the environment.
The adoption of this Special Permit allows “UN3077, coal tar pitch compounds” to be shipped in non-specification open-top or closed-top sift proof metal cans or fiber drums. The use of this alternative package for the shipment of coal tar pitch compounds is not expected to have any negative effect on safety or the environment.
The adoption of this Special Permit allows “UN 3088, spent bleaching earth” to be exempt from the requirements of the HMR when shipped in non-specification, sift-proof dump or hopper type vehicles. Exempting these materials from the HMR when shipped in these alternative packages is not expected to have any negative effect on safety or the environment.
The adoption of this Special Permit allows “UN 2672, ammonia solutions” to be shipped in UN1HI drums, UN3H1 jerricans, and UN6HA1 composite packages that do not meet provision in §§ 173.24 and 173.24a. Allowing shipments of these materials in these packages is not expected to have any negative effects on safety or the environment.
These hazardous materials are capable of affecting human health and the environment if a release were to occur. However, adoption of these special permits maintains an equivalent level of safety as provided in the special permits.
PHMSA considered a wide array of special permits for adoption. It also considered adopting a smaller subset of special permits.” However, the full benefits would not be realized as some permits would not be adopted.
If no action is taken then Special Permits will continue to be issued resulting in no change to the current potential affects to the environment.
This final rule allows the transportation of the following hazardous materials and packages in ways that vary from certain other provisions in the HMR:
• “UN 3291, Regulated medical waste, n.o.s.,”—PHMSA considered whether alternative markings would be sufficient in providing adequate hazardous communication. The package described in this special permit does not differ from packages currently allowed under the HMR with the exception of the allowed markings and thus will not impose any addition risk to the environment. Medical waste transportation is regulated to avoid risk of injury, infection, and contamination. In addition, as described above, PHMSA has no report of incidents under this special permit and thus expects there will be no impact to the environment.
• Non-flammable gasses shipped in non-DOT specification steel cylinders for use in life-saving appliances—PHMSA considered whether the limited use of non-DOT specification cylinders between U.S. Coast Guard ships and servicing facilities would pose a risk to the environment. The cylinders used in this special permit contain inert gases which if released would pose little to no risk to the environment. The regulation of compressed gas cylinders requires testing to ensure integrity and functionality of the cylinder. Cylinder rupture or failure can cause serious injury or death. In addition, as described above, PHMSA has no reports of incidents under this special permit and thus expects there will be no impact to the environment.
• Beverages, food, cosmetics and medicines, medical screening solutions, and concentrates classed as a flammable liquid or flammable solid containing ethyl alcohol—PHMSA considered whether the shipment of these low hazard consumer products containing ethyl alcohol would pose a risk to the environment. These packages contain
• “UN3077, coal tar pitch compounds”—PHMSA considered whether the shipment of coal tar pitch compounds in open-top and closed-top sift-proof metal cans or fiber drums would pose a risk to the environment. Coal tar pitch is a black or dark-brown amorphous residue produced by the distillation or heat treatment of coal tar. Coal tar pitch compounds contain various chemical vapors that become airborne during the heating of coal tar pitch. Coal tar pitch is a flammable liquid and a known carcinogen. An accidental release of “coal tar pitch compounds” could result in contamination of surrounding environmental medium (air, water, soil). However, as described above, PHMSA has no reports of incidents under this special permit and thus expects there will be no impact to the environment.
• “UN 3088, spent bleaching earth”—PHMSA considered whether the shipment of spent bleaching earth in non-specification, sift-proof dump or hopper type vehicles would pose a risk to the environment. These packages contain “spent bleaching earth” which is a solid waste from the edible oil industry. Spent bleaching earth can be flammable, as it contains oil residue. An accidental release of “spent bleaching earth” could result in possible contamination of surrounding environmental medium (air, water, soil). However as described above, PHMSA has no reports of incidents under this special permit and thus expects there will be no impact to the environment.
• “UN 2672, ammonia solutions”—PHMSA considered whether the shipment of ammonia solutions in UN1H1 and UN6HA1 drums would pose a risk to the environment. Ammonia can cause irritation and damage to mucous membranes and lungs, depending on concentration. An accidental release of Ammonia solutions could result in possible contamination of surrounding environmental mediums (air, water, soil). However, as described above, PHMSA has no reports of incidents under this special permit and thus expects there will be no impact to the environment.
Hazardous materials shipments frequently move through densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas where the consequences of an incident could be loss of life, serious injury, or significant environmental damage. Because of the vastness of transportation networks, nearly any community or ecosystem could be affected by a hazardous materials release during transportation. Therefore, impacts from a release could affect include atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial, and vegetal resources (for example, wildlife habitats). The adverse environmental impacts associated with releases of most hazardous materials are short-term impacts that can be greatly reduced or eliminated through prompt clean-up of the incident scene.
In all modes of transport, the potential for environmental damage or contamination exists when packages of hazardous materials are involved in transportation incidents. The process through which safety permits are issued requires the applicant to demonstrate that the alternative transportation method or packaging proposed provides an equivalent level of safety as that provided in the HMR. Implicit in this process is that the special permit must provide an equivalent level of environmental protection as that provided in the HMR. Thus, adoption of the special permits as regulations of general applicability maintain the existing environmental protections built into the HMR. The special permits and approvals adopted into the HMR have consistently demonstrated a long history of safe use. In its review of these special permits and approval, PHMSA did not identify any incidents that had a significant effect on the environment. These special permits have a long history of transporting the above mentioned hazardous materials safely and without any effects on the environment. Therefore, we find that adoption of the above described special permits into the HMR will not have any significant positive or negative impact on the environment.
This final rule would affect some PHMSA stakeholders, including hazardous materials shippers and carriers by air, highway, rail and vessel. PHMSA sought comment on the environmental assessment contained in the October 22, 2012, NPRM published under Docket PHMSA–2011–0158 [77 FR 64450] (HM–233C) however, PHMSA did not receive any comments on the environmental assessment contained in that rulemaking. In addition, PHMSA sought comment from the following modal partners:
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• United States Coast Guard
PHMSA is making numerous amendments to the HMR through the adoption of special permits and approvals. The amendments adopted in this final rule are intended to update, clarify, or provide relief from certain existing regulatory requirements to promote safer transportation practices; eliminate unnecessary regulatory requirements; finalize outstanding petitions for rulemaking; facilitate international commerce; and, in general, make the requirements easier to understand and follow.
Given that this rulemaking amends the HMR to adopt provisions contained in certain widely-used or longstanding special permits that have an established safety record, these changes in regulation should in fact increase safety and environmental protections. Furthermore, while the net environmental impact of this rule will be positive, we believe there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of the final rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.
Hazardous materials transportation, Air carriers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hazardous materials transportation, Motor vehicle safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, we are amending 49 CFR Chapter I as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–121 sections 212–213; Pub. L. 104–134 section 31001; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.
(c) For an approval with an expiration date, each application for renewal or modification must be filed in the same manner as an original application. If, at least 60 days before an existing approval expires the holder files an application for renewal that is complete and conforms to the requirements of this section, the approval will not expire until final administrative action on the application for renewal has been taken. Operation under an expired approval not filed within 60 days of the expiration date is prohibited. This paragraph does not limit the authority of the Associate Administrator to modify, suspend or terminate an approval under § 107.713.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53; Pub. L. 101–410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104–134 section 31001.
(n) * * *
(3) CGA Pamphlet C–6, Standards for Visual Inspection of Steel Compressed Gas Cylinders, 1993, into § 172.102, § 173.3, 173.198, 180.205, 180.209, 180.211, 180.411, 180.519.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.53.
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
336 The use of UN1H1 drums, UN3H1 jerricans, and UN6HA1 composite packagings which meet the requirements of Part 178 of the HMR at the Packing Group I or II performance level. These packagings are not required to: (1.) meet the venting requirements in § 173.24(g) or (2.) be marked with the hydrostatic pressure test marking specified in § 173.24a(b)(4). Shipment of packages under this special provision must be made by private or contract motor carrier. Transportation of these packages also requires the door of each van trailer to be marked with “Warning trailer may contain chemical vapor. Do not enter until vapors have dissipated.” The driver of the transport vehicle and the consignee(s) must be trained not to enter the transport vehicle until the ammonia vapors have dissipated, and the emergency response information on the shipping paper must indicate that the vehicle contains ammonia vapors. This training must be documented in training records required by § 172.704(d). Transport vehicles must be vented to prevent accumulation of vapors at a poisonous or flammable concentration.
337 Authorizes the use of regulated waste containers manufactured prior to October 1, 2006 to be marked with the alternative shipping name of Regulated medical waste, UN3291 and arrows that deviate as prescribed in § 172.312(a)(2) in that they may be black or white.
338 Life Saving appliances, self-inflating transported between an U.S. Coast Guard approved inflatable life raft servicing facility and a vessel are only subject to the following requirements:
a. Prior to repacking into the life-saving appliance, an installed inflation cylinder must successfully meet and pass all inspection and test criteria and standards of the raft manufacturer and the vessel Flag State requirements for cylinders installed as part of life-saving appliances, self-inflating (UN2990) used on marine vessels. Additionally, each cylinder must be visually inspected in accordance with CGA pamphlet, CGA C–6 (incorporated by reference, see § 171.7). A current copy of CGA pamphlet, CGA C–6 must be available at the facility servicing the life-saving appliance.
b. An installed inflation cylinder that requires recharging must be filled in accordance with § 173.301(l).
c. Every installed inflation cylinder, as associated equipment of the life-saving appliance, must be packed within the protective packaging of the life raft and the life raft itself must otherwise be in compliance with § 173.219.
d. The serial number for each cylinder must be recorded as part of the life-saving appliance service record by the U.S. Coast Guard-approved servicing facility.
(3) * * *
B116 The use of non specification, sift-proof dump or hopper type vehicles, and sift-proof roll-on/roll-off bulk bins, which must be covered by a tarpaulin, metal cover, or equivalent means is authorized for the transportation of spent bleaching earth by motor vehicle. The material is also be subject to operational controls which include not exceeding a temperature of 55C (130F) at the time it is offered or during transportation, not exceeding a transportation time of 24 hours, and drivers transporting spent bleaching earth must be trained in the properties and hazards of the spent bleaching earth. This training must be documented in training records required by § 172.704(d).
(5) * * *
N91 The use of a non specification sift-proof, non-bulk, metal can with or without lid, or a non specification sift-proof, non-bulk fiber drum, with or without lid is authorized when transporting coal tar pitch compounds by motor vehicle or rail freight. The fiber drum must to be fabricated with a three ply wall, as a minimum. The coal tar pitch compound must be in a solid mass during transportation.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53.
(g)
(i) For non-glass inner packagings:
(A) The volume does not exceed 16 fluid ounces in capacity for liquids; or
(B) For volumes greater than 16 fluid ounces but not exceeding 1 gallon the company name and the words “Contains Ethyl Alcohol” are marked on the package;
(C) Solids containing ethyl alcohol may be packaged in non-glass inner packagings not exceeding 1 pounds capacity;
(D) For weight greater than one pound up to 8 pounds the company name and the words “Contains Ethyl Alcohol” are marked on the package.
(ii) For glass inner packagings:
(A) The volume does not exceed 8 fluid ounces in capacity; or
(B) For volumes greater than 8 fluid ounces to 16 fluid ounces the company name and the words “Contains Ethyl Alcohol” are marked on the package;
(C) Solids containing ethyl alcohol may be packaged in glass inner packagings not exceeding
(D) For weight greater than
(iii) The net liquid contents of all inner packagings in any single outer packaging may not exceed 192 fluid ounces. The net solid contents of all inner packagings in any single outer packaging may not exceed 32 pounds. The gross weight of any single outer package shipped may not exceed 65 pounds; Inner packagings must secured and cushioned within the outer package to prevent breakage, leakage, and movement.
(2) Beverages, food, cosmetics and medicines, medical screening solutions, and concentrates sold as retail products containing ethyl alcohol classed as a flammable liquid or flammable solid containing more than 70% ethyl alcohol by volume, by weight for solids are excepted from the HMR provided that:
(i) For inner packagings containing liquids the volume does not exceed 8 fluid ounces in capacity;
(ii) Solids containing ethyl alcohol are not packed in inner packagings exceeding
(iii) The net liquid contents of all inner packagings in any single outer packaging may not exceed 192 fluid ounces. The net solid contents of all inner packagings in any single outer packaging may not exceed 32 pounds. The gross weight of any single outer package shipped may not exceed 65 pounds. Inner packagings must be secured and cushioned within the outer package to prevent breakage, leakage, and movement.
(3) For transportation by passenger or cargo aircraft, no outer package may be transported which contains an inner packaging exceeding:
(i) 16 fluid ounces of flammable liquid, or
(ii) 1 pound of solids containing flammable liquid.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.45 and 1.53
(a)
(1) Transportation of the cylinders by a ground-based or water-based mode of transportation is unavailable and transportation by aircraft is the only practical means for transporting the cylinders to their destination;
(2) Each cylinder is fully covered with a fire or flame resistant blanket that is secured in place; and
(3) The operator of the aircraft complies with the applicable notification procedures under § 175.33.
(b)
(1) Cargo-only aircraft transporting the cylinders to a delivery destination that receives cargo-only service at least once a week.
(2) Passenger and cargo-only aircraft transporting the cylinders to a delivery destination that does not receive cargo only service once a week.
49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 1.53.
(b) * * *
(7) Authorization to manufacture, mark, and sell UN4G combination packagings with outer fiberboard boxes and with inner fiberboard components that have individual containerboard or paper wall basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report.
(b) * * *
(4) UN5M1 and UN5M2 multi wall paper bags that have paper wall basis weights that vary by not more than plus or minus 5% from the nominal basis weight reported in the initial design qualification test report.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason action.
NMFS announces that the butterfish trip limit for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders will be reduced to no more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt), effective 0001 hours, March 18, 2014. Vessels issued a Federal longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit and using greater than 3-inch (76-mm) mesh may not fish for, catch, possess or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip or calendar day for the remainder of the year (through December 31, 2014). The possession limit remains unchanged at 2,500-lb (1.13 mt) per trip or calendar day for vessels issued a Federal longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit and fishing with less than 3-inch (76-mm). The incidental possession limit also remains unchanged at 600 lb (0.27 mt). Federally permitted dealers also may not purchase more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish from federally permitted vessels per trip or per day, through December 31, 2014. This action is necessary to prevent the fishery from exceeding the domestic annual harvest (DAH) of 2,570 mt, and to allow for effective management of this stock.
Effective 0001 hours, March 18, 2014, through 2400 hours, December 31, 2014.
Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–281–9195, Fax 978–281–9135.
Regulations at 50 CFR part 648 govern the butterfish fishery. The regulations require specifications for maximum sustainable yield, initial optimum yield, allowable biological catch, annual catch limit (ACL), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing (DAP), joint venture processing, and total allowable levels of foreign fishing for the species managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The procedures for setting the annual initial specifications are described in § 648.22. The 2013 MSB specifications set the 2013 butterfish DAH at 2,570 mt (77 FR 3346, January 16, 2013). The regulations at § 648.22(d) state that, if annual specifications for the MSB fisheries are not published in the
Due to the increase in the butterfish DAH from previous years, the 2013 MSB specifications implemented a 3-phase butterfish management system to allow for maximum utilization of the butterfish resource without exceeding the stock-wide ACL. In phase 1, there is no trip limit for vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits using mesh greater than or equal to 3 inches (76 mm), a 2,500-lb (1.13-mt) trip limit for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits using mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm), and a trip limit of 600 lb (0.27 mt) for vessels issued squid/butterfish incidental catch permits. Once butterfish harvest reaches the trip hold reduction threshold to move from phase 1 to phase 2, the trip limit for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders will be reduced while in phase 2 to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) for vessels using greater than or equal to 3-inch (7.62 cm) mesh. The limit remains unchanged at 2,500-lb (1.13 mt) per trip or calendar day for vessels issued a Federal longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits and fishing with less than 3-inch (76-mm); and the incidental limit remains at 600 lb (0.27 mt). When we project butterfish harvest to reach the trip hold reduction thresholds to move from phase 2 to phase 3, the trip limit for all longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders will be reduced while in phase 3 to 500 lb (0.23 mt) to avoid quota overages. For phases 2 and 3, the quota thresholds to reduce the trip limits will vary bimonthly throughout the year.
Section 648.24 requires NMFS to reduce the butterfish trip limits for vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits when butterfish harvest reaches the trip limit reduction threshold to move from phase 1 to phase 2. When butterfish harvest reaches the trip limit reduction threshold to move from phase 1 to phase 2, vessels fishing with a minimum mesh size of 3 inches (76 mm) are prohibited from fishing for, catching, possessing, or landing more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) per trip or per day. Trip limits for vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) remain at 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip, and the incidental trip limit remains at 600 mt (0.27 lb).
NMFS is further required to notify the Executive Directors of the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; mail notification of the trip limit reduction to all holders of butterfish permits at least 72 hr before the effective date of the trip limit reduction; provide adequate notice of the trip limit reduction to recreational participants in the fishery; and publish notification of the trip limit reduction in the
The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, based on dealer reports and other available information, has determined that butterfish harvest has reached the phase 2 trip limit reduction of 47 percent. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, March 18, 2014, the directed butterfish fishery is operating under phase 2, and vessels issued Federal longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits may not fish for, catch, possess or land more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of butterfish per trip or calendar day when fishing with mesh size greater than 3 inches (76 mm). Trip limits for vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits fishing with mesh less than 3 inches (76 mm) will remain at 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) of butterfish per trip and the incidental trip limit will remain at 600 lb (0.27 mt). If or when butterfish harvest is projected to reach the phase 3 trip limit reduction threshold specified for 2013, butterfish trip limits for longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders will be reduced to 500 lb (0.23 mt), regardless of mesh size used, through a subsequent action in the
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action reduces the butterfish trip limit for vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.24 require such action to ensure that butterfish vessels do not exceed the 2013 DAH. Data indicating the butterfish fleet will have landed at least 50 percent of the 2013 DAH have only recently become available. If NMFS delays the implementation of this trip limit reduction in order to solicit prior public comment, butterfish harvest may continue to increase without sufficient effort control, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 13, 2014, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., September 1, 2014.
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 156 metric tons (mt), as established by the
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 126 mt and is setting aside the remaining 30 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 12, 2014.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 15, 2014, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2014.
Josh Keaton, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,189 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,189 mt and is setting aside the remaining 1,000 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 12, 2014.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule invites comments on revisions to the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and is administered locally by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee). This action would allow the use of mechanical samplers (auto-samplers) for in-line sampling as a method to obtain samples for aflatoxin analysis. The use of auto-samplers is expected to reduce handler costs by providing a more efficient and cost-effective process.
Comments must be received by April 17, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. 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:
Andrea Ricci, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, 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 proposal is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, 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 Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
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. A 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 invites comments on revisions to the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the order. This proposal would allow the use of mechanical samplers (auto-samplers) as an additional method to obtain lot samples for aflatoxin analysis. All auto-samplers would need to be approved by and be subject to procedures and requirements established by the USDA Federal-State Inspection Service prior to their use. The proposed rule was unanimously recommended by the Committee at its meeting held on August 19, 2013.
Section 983.50 of the order provides authority for aflatoxin regulations that establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in domestic and export markets. Aflatoxin regulations are currently in effect for pistachios shipped to domestic markets.
Section 983.150 of the order's rules and regulations contains specific requirements regarding sampling and testing of pistachios for aflatoxin. Paragraph (d)(1) of that section provides that a sample shall be drawn from each lot of pistachios and such samples shall meet specific weight requirements according to the size of the lot.
The current method of collecting samples of pistachios to be tested requires hand sampling of static lots by, or under the supervision of, an inspector of the Federal-State Inspection Service (inspector). This process requires handler personnel to stage the lots to be sampled, which requires moving large containers around with a forklift. This process utilizes a considerable amount of time and warehouse space. Inspectors are then required to manually conduct the sampling by drawing samples from the containers, which is very labor intensive. Once the lot sample is collected, the inspector prepares test samples for aflatoxin analysis.
Since the order's promulgation in 2004, the volume of open inshell pistachios processed annually has increased significantly, from 165 million pounds to 354 million pounds
If this rule is implemented, handlers would have the option of using mechanized sampling instead of manual sampling. Automatic samplers in handlers' processing facilities would mechanically draw samples of pistachios as they are being processed. This would make the sampling process more efficient by eliminating the extra warehouse space and handler labor needed for staging static lots for sampling. In addition, the labor costs of manual sampling would be eliminated, further reducing handler costs. A discussion of the costs is included in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility section of this document.
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 action 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 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 23 handlers of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios subject to regulation under the order and approximately 990 pistachio producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
Currently, about 70 percent of handlers ship less than $7,000,000 worth of pistachios on an annual basis and would be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. Data provided by the Committee regarding the size of the 2012 crop indicates that approximately 80 percent of producers delivered less than 375,000 pounds of assessable dry weight of pistachios. Using an estimated price of $2 per pound of pistachios, this would equate to less than $750,000 in receipts; thus, 80 percent of producers would be considered small businesses according to the SBA definition.
This proposal would modify the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under § 983.150(d) of the order's rules and regulations. This rule would allow the use of auto-samplers as a method to obtain samples for aflatoxin analysis. Currently, only manual hand-drawn sampling from static lots is permitted. Allowing the use of auto-samplers for in-line sampling would streamline the sampling process for pistachios. It is expected to make the sampling process more efficient by eliminating the time and space needed for staging and inspecting static lots, reducing the amount of labor, and therefore reducing handler costs. Authority for this action is provided in § 983.50 of the order.
The Committee estimates the current method of sampling to range in cost from $135 to $170 per lot. This expense includes the warehouse space and employee labor needed to stage a lot for inspection and the costs of the inspection. The initial expense of purchasing an auto-sampler ranges from as low as $1,000 to as high as $5,000. The cost of collecting samples with the auto-sampler is estimated at about $5 per lot, which is significantly lower than the static lot sampling method, which ranges from $135 to $170 per lot.
The following example is used to illustrate potential savings for a handler that processes 3,000,000 pounds of pistachios per year. Assuming a lot size of 50,000 pounds, this handler would require inspection on 60 lots of pistachios (3,000,000 ∕ 50,000). Under the current manual sampling method, this would result in a total sampling cost of $8,100 (60 × $135). If this handler purchased an automatic sampler for $5,000, the total sampling cost (including equipment) would be $5,300 ($5,000 + $5 cost per lot to pull the samples). Thus, in this example the handler would save $2,800 in the first year of operation. After the first year, the savings would increase because there would be no additional equipment cost. Applying this on an industry-wide basis, the aggregate cost savings could be significant, considering recent shipment levels have exceeded 300,000,000 pounds of pistachios.
Based on these cost estimates and the example provided, use of automatic samplers could provide a significant cost saving to the industry. The potential cost savings for individual handlers would vary, depending on the size and structure of their operation. Each handler would need to evaluate their operation to determine which method of sampling best fits their needs. This proposal would provide an additional option for sampling that does not currently exist for handlers.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change, including continuing to operate under the current aflatoxin sampling procedures. However, the Committee unanimously agreed that adding the option to use mechanical sampling equipment would provide handlers with a more efficient and cost-effective sampling alternative to the manual sampling process.
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. 0581–0215, Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. 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 modify aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order. Accordingly, this action would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pistachio 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 proposed rule.
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 19, 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 regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
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 proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because the industry would like the modified regulation to be in place prior to the 2014–15 production year, which begins September 1, 2014. This regulation would need to be in effect before the production year to allow handlers to install auto-sampling equipment prior to harvest. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Marketing agreements and orders, Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(d) * * *
(1)
(i) At premises with mechanical sampling equipment (auto-samplers) approved by the USDA Federal-State Inspection Service, samples shall be drawn by the handler in a manner acceptable to the Committee and the USDA Federal-State Inspection Service.
(ii) At premises without mechanical sampling equipment, sampling shall be conducted by or under the supervision of an inspector, or as approved under an alternative USDA-recognized inspection program.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) is proposing to amend its regulations found in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L for allocating program funds to its State Offices. RBS is proposing to amend 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to add three programs—the Rural Energy for America Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and the Intermediary Relending Program. In addition, RBS is proposing revisions to its state allocation formulae for existing programs within 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to account for changes in data reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census' decennial Census. RBS is also proposing to make various other changes including: revising the weight percentages associated with each of the allocation criteria; providing flexibility in determining when not to make state allocations for a program; restricting the use of the transition formula and changing the limitations on how much program funds can change when the transition formula is used; adding provisions for making state allocation for other RBS programs, including new ones; and providing consistency, where necessary, in the allocation of RBS program funds to State Offices.
Written comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Submit your comments on this rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular work hours at the 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor address listed above.
Chad Parker, Deputy Admininstrator Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3220, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–3225; email:
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program numbers for the programs affected by this action are 10.352, Value-Added Producer Grant Program; 10.767, Intermediary Relending Program; 10.768, Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program; 10.769, Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program; 10.773, Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program, 10.868, Rural Energy for America Program.
This action is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” Rural Development has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the action will not affect a significant number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). RBS made this determination based on the fact that this action only impacts internal Agency procedures for determining how much of available program funds are allocated to each state. Small entities will not be impacted to a greater extent than large entities.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If interested, please direct Tribal Consultation inquiries and comments to Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at
There are no reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule.
Rural Development 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 citizens to access Government information and services electronically.
RBS proposes to amend its regulations for allocating program funds among its State Offices. This action is necessary to provide a regulatory basis for allocating funds for the Rural Energy for America Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and the Intermediary Relending Program. In addition, because of changes to the reporting of data by the Census Bureau, RBS needs to use an alternative data source for unemployment rates. Other changes are being proposed to:
• Allow RBS to not allocate funds to states if RBS determines that it is in the Federal Government's best financial interests not to make state allocations;
• adjust the application of the transition allocation formula;
• address making state allocations for RBS programs that are not specifically identified in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L;
• provide consistency among RBS programs; and
• remove unnecessary text.
As discussed below, RBS is proposing to add three new programs to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L. The inclusion of a specific program within 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L does not mean that RBS is bound to make state allocations for that program each fiscal year. The current rule allows, and the proposed rule continues to allow, RBS to not make state allocations for a particular program in any fiscal year when funds allocated to a program are insufficient. Thus, for example, including the Value-Added Producer Grant program does not mean that RBS will allocate program funds to the States each fiscal year.
1.
RBS determined that the first two criteria used for the other RBS programs are also appropriate for REAP. These two criteria are:
• State's percentage of national rural population
• State's percentage of national rural population with incomes below the poverty level
The third criterion currently used is the State's percentage of national nonmetropolitan unemployment. This criterion is appropriate for programs where job creation is a primary goal. Projects funded under REAP, however, are designed primarily to help agricultural producers and rural small businesses lower their energy costs either through the implementation of energy efficiency improvements or the purchase of renewable energy systems. While job creation is important to all of its programs, RBS has determined that a more appropriate criterion for REAP would be associated with energy, especially those areas of the country facing high energy costs.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is proposing to use data published by the Energy Information Administration. These data include estimate of energy production, consumption, prices, and expenditures broken down by energy source and sector. The multi-
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following weight factors for these three critiera, which in part reflect the Agency's priority on addressing persistent poverty in rural America:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for energy costs.
2.
The focus of VAPG is to provide producers with funds to add value to their products. RBS determined that two of the three criteria used for the other RBS programs are also appropriate for VAPG. These two criteria are:
• State's percentage of national rural population
• State's percentage of national rural population with incomes below the poverty level
The third criterion currently used is the State's percentage of national nonmetrolpolitan unemployment. This criterion is appropriate for programs where job creation is a primary goal. While job creation is important to all of its programs, RBS has determined that a more appropriate criterion for VAPG would be associated with the state's percentage of farms.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is proposing to use data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The data provides a detailed picture of U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. It is the only source of uniform, comprehensive agriculture data for every state and county in the United States. The USDA data provides the most accurate number of farms within a state.
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following weight factors for these three criteria, which in part reflect the Agency's priority on addressing persistent poverty in rural America:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for number of farms.
3.
RBS has implemented the existing formulae using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Beginning with the 2010 decennial Census, income/poverty data and unemployment data are no longer included in the decennial Census. Because of this change, RBS needs to update and clarify the data sources for the current criteria.
1.
2.
3.
Currently, the criteria used to make state allocations are assigned the following weight factors to the three “traditional” criteria of rural population, rural poverty, and rural unemployemt:
• 50 percent for rural population;
• 25 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for unemployment.
While these weight factors have well served the Agency's priorities in the past, RBS is proposing to revise the basic weight factors for the “traditional” three criteria to reflect a greater emphasis of the Agency's priority to address persistent poverty in rural America. Specifically, RBS is proposing the following new weight factors:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for unemployment.
The proposed changes would reduce the rural population weight factor from 50 to 25 percent and increase the poverty weight factor from 25 to 50 percent. The Agency is not proposing any change to the unemployment weight factor.
As noted earlier, RBS is proposing this same distribution of weight factors for the REAP and VAPG programs, with 50 percent factor for poverty and 25 percent factors for the other two weighting criteria for those two programs.
The current regulations allow RBS to not allocate a program's funding to the states when funding in a particular fiscal year is insufficient. RBS is proposing to add a second condition such that RBS may elect not to allocate a program's funds to States in a particular fiscal year if RBS determines that it is in the Federal Government's best financial interests not to make state allocations. RBS is proposing this new condition to provide administrative flexibility and to account for time and availability of RBS resources.
The purpose of the transition formula is to reduce the impact of a large change to any one state's allocation when new decennial Census data are used. Under the proposed rule, except for rural population (which would still be changed every 10 years based on the decennial Census), the state allocation formulae would be rerun every year reflecting new yearly data for the other two criteria. As a result, RBS does not expect a large change to any one state's
RBS is also proposing revising the amount by which a state's funding can change when the transition formula is applied. Currently, the regulation limits the amount a state's funding can change to either plus or minus 15 percent over the previous year's allocation amount. RBS is proposing to make two changes to when the transition formula is applied.
1. RBS is proposing to eliminate the restriction on how much a state's allocation can increase over the previous year's allocation. Currently, when the allocation formula is applied, a state's allocation cannot increase more than 15 percent over its previous year's allocation for that program. RBS has decided that, if a state's condition has changed significantly enough as to warrant an increase in allocation, then there should be no limit on how much of an increase that state can receive.
2. RBS is proposing to keep a restriction on how much a state's allocation can decrease from one year to the next, but to limit the decrease to 10 percent. This allows a “softer” landing for those states receiving a reduction in allocation.
As proposed, the revised 7 CFR part 1490, subpart L addresses six RBS programs for which RBS intends to make state allocations of each programs' funds. There are other existing RBS programs that are administered at the National Office level, but for which RBS does not intend, at this time, to make state allocations. However, it is possible that RBS may decide in the future to make state allocations for an existing program not currently included in 7 CFR 1940, subpart L. In addition, as new legislation is passed, RBS may be required to develop new programs, as occurred with the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill. For such newly authorized programs, RBS may determine that allocating the program's funds to the states is appropriate.
RBS is proposing to add a new section to address these situations. As proposed, RBS will first determine whether or not one of the three formulae in proposed § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 is appropriate for the program.
1. If RBS determines that one of the three formulae in these section matches, or closely matches, the purposes of the “new” program, RBS will publish a
2. If RBS determines that none of the three state allocation procedures is appropriate for the “new” program, RBS will identify and publish a preliminary allocation formula via the
RBS is also proposing to make the changes to consolidate similar programs, create consistency between the programs, and remove text that is administrative in nature.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
RBS is proposing to remove the following text from the RBEG program provisions because it is only explanatory in nature and is unnecessary in determining how allocations are made: “The allocation of funds is made available for States to obligate on an annual basis although the Office of Management and Budget apportions funds to the Agency on a quarterly basis.”
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Allocations, Grant programs—Housing and community development, Loan programs—Agriculture, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend chapter XVIII, title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
The Agency will allocate funds to the States each Federal fiscal year for the programs identified in this section using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the Agency determines that it will not allocate funds to the States for a program identified in this section in a particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will announce this decision in a notice published in the
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of national nonmetropolitan unemployment.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in paragraph (a) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by publishing a timely notice in the
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's funding becomes available for the program.
(3)
(4)
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its previous year's allocation.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(b)
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to a program identified in this section are insufficient, as provided for in § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for any program identified in this section and that the exercise of this determination is not in conflict with applicable law.
The Agency will allocate funds to the States each Federal fiscal year for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement projects under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the Agency determines that it will not allocate funds to the States for REAP in a particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will announce this decision in a notice published in the
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of energy cost.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by publishing a timely notice in the
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's funding becomes available for the program.
(3)
(4)
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its previous year's allocation.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(b)
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to REAP are insufficient, as provided for in § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for REAP and that the exercise of this determination is not in conflict with applicable law.
The Agency will allocate the general funds to the States each Federal fiscal year for the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the Agency determines that it will not allocate funds to the States for the VAPG program in a particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will announce this decision in a notice published in the
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of total farms.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by publishing a timely notice in the
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's funding becomes available for the program.
(3)
(4)
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its previous year's allocation.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(b)
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to VAPG are insufficient, as provided for in § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for VAPG and that the exercise of this determination is not in conflict with applicable law.
If the Agency determines that it is in the best interest of the Federal government to allocate funds to States for existing RBS programs other than those identified in §§ 1940.588 through 1940.590 of this subpart and for programs new to RBS (e.g., through new legislation), the Agency will use the process identified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(a) If the Agency determines that one of the State allocation procedures in § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 is appropriate for the program, the Agency will publish a
(b) If the Agency determines that none of the procedures specified in § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 is appropriate for the program, the Agency will implement the following steps:
(1) The Agency will either develop a preliminary state allocation formula and administrative procedures specific to the requirements of the new program or use whichever of the three procedures in § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 the Agency determines most closely matches the purpose of the program. The Agency will publish in the
(2) The Agency will develop a state allocation formula and administrative provisions specific to the new program and publish them as a proposed rule change to this part in the
(3) Until the program's state allocation formula and administrative requirements are finalized, the Agency will use the preliminary state allocation formula established under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to make state allocations and administer the new program.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of data availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is informing the public of its collection of shipment data and creation of spreadsheet models to provide comparisons between actual and benchmark estimate unit sales of five lamp types (
As of March 18, 2014, the DOE has determined that no regulatory action is necessary at this time.
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140) was enacted on December 19, 2007. Among the requirements of subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of title III of EISA 2007 were provisions directing DOE to collect, analyze, and monitor unit sales of five lamp types (
On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) for the
EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (4)(H) which state that if DOE finds that the unit sales for a given lamp type in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (
As in the 2008 analysis and previous comparisons, DOE uses manufacturer shipments as a surrogate for unit sales in this NODA because manufacturer shipment data are tracked and aggregated by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE believes that annual shipments track closely with actual unit sales of these five lamp types, as DOE presumes that retailer inventories remain constant from year to year. DOE believes this is a reasonable assumption because the markets for these five lamp types have existed for many years, thereby enabling manufacturers and retailers to establish appropriate inventory levels that reflect market demand. Furthermore, in the long run, unit sales could not increase in any one year without manufacturer shipments increasing either that year or the following one. In either case, increasing unit sales must eventually result in increasing manufacturer shipments. This is the same methodology presented in DOE's 2008 analysis and subsequent annual comparisons, and the Department did not receive any comments challenging this assumption or the general approach.
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “rough service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `rough service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C–7A, C–11, C–17, and C–22 as listed in Figure 6–12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for `rough service' applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))
As noted above, rough service incandescent lamps must have a minimum of five filament support wires (not counting the two connecting leads at the beginning and end of the filament), and must be designated and marketed for “rough service” applications. This type of incandescent lamp is typically used in applications where the lamp would be subject to mechanical shock or vibration while it is operating. Standard incandescent lamps have only two support wires (which also serve as conductors), one at each end of the filament coil. When operating (
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “vibration service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `vibration service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) has filament configurations that are C–5, C–7A, or C–9, as listed in Figure 6–12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))
The statute mentions three examples of filament configurations for vibration service lamps in Figure 6–12 of the
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “3-way incandescent lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `3-way incandescent lamp' includes an incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in combination, to provide 3 light levels; and (ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y))
Three-way lamps are commonly found in wattage combinations such as 50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 100 watts. These lamps use two filaments (
The statute does not provide a definition of “2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps”; however, DOE is interpreting this term to be a general service incandescent lamp
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or shatter-protected lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The terms `shatter-resistant lamp,' `shatter-proof lamp,' and `shatter-protected lamp' mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with [National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute] NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with—(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition provides three names commonly used to refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers to them collectively as “shatter-resistant lamps.”
Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a special coating designed to prevent glass shards from being dispersed if a lamp's glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a coating compliant with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,
In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed each of the five sets of shipment data that were collected in consultation with NEMA and applied two curve fits to generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. One curve fit applied a linear regression to the historical data and extended that line into the future. The other curve fit applied an exponential growth function to the shipment data and projected unit sales into the future. For this calculation, linear regression treats the year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences among the data points and the best curve-fit linear line using the least squares function.
For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE found that the linear regression and exponential growth curve fits produced nearly the same estimates of unit sales (
For rough service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected
For vibration service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2013 to be 2,871,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 1,407,000 vibration service lamps in 2013. As this finding is only 49.0 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track vibration service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For 3-way incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2013 to be 49,617,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 34,773,000 3-way incandescent lamps in 2013. As this finding is only 70.1 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For 2,601–3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2013 to be 34,044,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 9,296,000 2,601–3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps in 2013. As this finding is 27.3 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 2,601–3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For shatter-resistant lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2013 to be 1,667,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 1,093,000 shatter-resistant lamps in 2013. As this finding is only 65.6 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track shatter-resistant lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
None of the shipments for rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed the statutory threshold for a standard. DOE will continue to monitor these five currently exempted lamp types and will assess 2014 sales by March 31, 2015, in order to determine whether an energy conservation standards rulemaking is required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)–(H).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of public meeting and extension of public comment period.
This document announces a new date for the March 3, 2014, public meeting that was postponed due to inclement weather, and an extension of the time period for submitting comments concerning the February 5, 2014, Framework Document about whether to establish energy conservation standards for commercial and industrial air compressors. The public meeting has been rescheduled for April 1, 2014. The comment period is extended to April 22, 2014.
DOE will hold a public meeting on April 1, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., in Washington, DC. In addition, DOE plans to broadcast the public meeting via webinar. You may attend the public meeting either in person or via webinar. Registration information, participant instructions, and also information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published in advance on DOE's Web site at:
The comment period for submissions regarding the Framework Document has been extended to April 22, 2014.
Please note that any visitor with a personal computer who enters the Forrestal Building is required to be screened and to obtain a property pass upon entry. Such visitors should allow 45 minutes for the screening process. As noted above, persons may also attend the public meeting via webinar.
•
•
•
•
For information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
For information on how to submit or review public comments and on how to participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone (202) 586–2945. Email:
On February 5, 2014, DOE published a notice announcing the availability of a Framework Document and a public meeting to discuss that document. See 79 FR 6839. That notice announced that the public meeting would be held on March 3, 2014 and that written comments to DOE regarding the Framework Document would need to be submitted by no later than March 24, 2014. In light of the inclement weather that forced the cancellation of the March 3rd meeting, DOE is rescheduling the meeting to be held on April 1, 2014 and is providing commenters until April 22, 2014 to provide any written comments regarding the Framework Document. Accordingly, DOE will consider any comments received by April 22, 2014, to be timely submitted.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Extra EA–300/LC airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with static stability. This airplane can perform at the highest level of aerobatic competition. To be competitive, the aircraft was designed with positive and, at some points, neutral stability within its flight envelope. Its lateral and directional axes are also decoupled from each other providing more precise maneuvering. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards to EA–300/LC airplanes certified solely in the acrobatic category.
Send your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA–2014–0155] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Ross Schaller, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329–4162; facsimile (816) 329–4090.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
On February 3, 2011, Extra GmbH applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A67EU to include the derivative model number, EA–300/LC. The EA–300/LC, which is a derivative of the EA–300/L, currently approved under Type Certificate No. A67EU, is a single engine, two-place tandem canopy cockpit, low wing aerobatic monoplane with conventional landing gear.
Its maximum takeoff weight is 2095 pounds (950 kilograms). V
Acrobatic airplanes previously type certificated by the FAA did comply with the stability provisions of part 23, subpart B. However, airplanes like the EA–300/LC are considered as “unlimited” acrobatic aircraft because they can perform at the highest level of aerobatic competition and can perform any maneuvers listed in the Aresti Catalog. The evolution of the “unlimited” types of acrobatic airplanes with very low mass, exceptional roll rates, and very high G capabilities, in addition to power to mass ratios that are unique to this type of airplane, have led to airplanes that cannot comply with the regulatory stability requirements. These airplanes can still be type-certificated, but in the acrobatic category only and with special conditions and limitations.
The FAA will only consider certifying the EA–300/LC in the acrobatic category. Extra GmbH will not be able to offer a normal category-operating envelope to accommodate the increased fuel load designed for cross-country operations. The FAA does recognize that fuel exhaustion is one of the top accident causes associated with this class of aircraft. For this reason, the FAA proposes to allow Extra to seek certification of a limited acrobatic envelope at a higher weight that will still meet the minimum load requirements of +6/-3 g associated with § 23.337. The EA–300/LC airplane would be approved for unlimited maneuvers at or below its designed unlimited acrobatic weight. The airplane would also be approved, at some higher weight (for fuel/passenger), that would still meet the requirements of § 23.337 for acrobatic category and may have restrictions on the maneuvers allowed.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Extra GmbH must show that the EA–300/LC meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendment 23–34 effective September 14, 1987 and Special Condition 23–ACE–65, published in the
14 CFR part 36, effective December 1, 1969, as amended by Amendments 36–1 through 36–28.
Not approved for ditching; compliance with provisions for ditching equipment in accordance with 14 FR 23.1415(a)(b) has not been demonstrated.
Approved for VFR-day only. Flight in known icing prohibited.
In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate No. A67EU will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this model airplane.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the EA–300/LC because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the EA–300/LC must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Extra GmbH EA–300/LC will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
For acrobatic category airplanes with unlimited acrobatic capability:
Neutral longitudinal and lateral static stability characteristics
The Code of Federal Regulations states static stability criteria for longitudinal, lateral, and directional axes of an airplane. However, none of these criteria is adequate to address the specific issues raised in the flight characteristics of an unlimited aerobatic airplane. Therefore, the FAA has determined after a flight-test evaluation that, in addition to the requirements of parts 21 and 23, special conditions are needed to address these static stability characteristics.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the EA–300/LC. Should Extra GmbH apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Extra GmbH EA–300/LC airplanes.
(a) A pull on the yoke must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed and a push on the yoke required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight need not be considered.
(b) The stick force or position must vary with speed so that any substantial speed change results in a stick force or position clearly perceptible to the pilot.
SC23.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability:
(a) Climb. The stick force curve must have, at a minimum, a neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between 85 and 115 percent of the trim speed, with—
(1) Maximum continuous power; and
(2) The airplane trimmed at the speed used in determining the climb performance required by § 23.69(a).
(b) Cruise. With the airplane power and trim set for level flight at representative cruising speeds at high and low altitudes, including speeds up to V
(1) The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a neutrally stable to stable slope at all speeds within a range that is the greater of 15 percent of the trim speed plus the resulting free return speed range, or 40 knots plus the resulting free return speed range above and below the trim speed, except the slope need not be stable—
(i) At speeds less than 1.3 V
(ii) For airplanes with V
(c) Landing. The stick force curve must, at a minimum, have a neutrally stable to stable slope at speeds between 1.1 V
(1) Landing gear extended; and
(2) The airplane trimmed at—
(i) V
(ii) V
SC23.177 Static directional and lateral stability:
(a) The static directional stability, as shown by the tendency to recover from a wings level sideslip with the rudder free, must be positive for any landing gear and flap position appropriate to the takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and landing configurations. This must be shown with symmetrical power up to maximum continuous power, and at speeds from 1.2 V
(b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 V
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Bridgeport, CT, as the Bridgeport VOR has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of Sikorsky Heliport.
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2014.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2014–0076; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANE–4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0076; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANE–4) and be submitted in triplicate to
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–0076; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANE–4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Bridgeport, CT. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 9.0-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Bridgeport VOR and cancellation of the VOR approaches, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of Sikorsky Heliport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Bridgeport, CT.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.0-mile radius of Igor I. Sikorsky Airport, and within an 8.5-mile radius of Sikorsky Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Newnan, GA, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2014.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2014–0097; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0097; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–4) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–0097; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Newnan Coweta County Airport, Newnan, GA. A segment would be added from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 14 miles southeast of the airport to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Newnan Coweta County Airport, Newnan, GA.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Newnan Coweta County Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 140° bearing from the airport, extending 14 miles southeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Elkin, NC, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Elkin Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of airport.
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2014.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2014–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Elkin Municipal Airport, Elkin, NC. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 9.3-mile radius of the airport is necessary to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Elkin Municipal Airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Elkin Municipal Airport, Elkin, NC.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Elkin Municipal Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the “Choptank Bridge Swim”, a marine event to be held on the waters of the Choptank River between Cambridge, MD and Trappe, MD on May 10, 2014. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Choptank River during the event.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 17, 2014. The Coast Guard anticipates that this proposed rule will be effective on May 10, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202–366–9329.
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 410–576–2674, 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 in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The current regulations under 33 CFR part 100 address safety for reoccurring marine events. This marine event does not appear in the current regulations; however, as it is a regulation to provide effective control over regattas and marine parades on the navigable waters of the United States so as to insure safety of life in the regatta or marine parade area, this marine event therefore needs to be temporarily added.
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Choptank Bridge Swim event.
On May 10, 2014, The Columbia Triathlon Association, Inc. of Columbia, Maryland, is sponsoring the inaugural “Choptank Bridge Swim” across the Choptank River between Cambridge, MD and Trappe, MD. The event will occur from 10 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. Approximately 250 swimmers will compete on a 3.6-mile and 1.6-mile endurance open water courses. For the 1.6 mile swim, participants will start at the Choptank River Fishing Pier State Park on the Talbot County side of the Choptank River and swim between the Choptank River Bridge and the Choptank River Fishing Pier, finishing on the beach at the Dorchester County Visitor's Center. Swimmers participating in the longer 3.6 mile swim will begin on the beach at the Hyatt Regency in Cambridge (south side of the river), swim 2 miles north across the river to the Choptank River Fishing Pier State Park, and then follow the 1.6 mile course between the Choptank River Bridge and the Choptank River Fishing Pier, finishing on the beach at the Dorchester County Visitor's Center. The inaugural Choptank Bridge Swim is sanctioned by the World Open Water Swimming Association. Participants will be supported by sponsor-provided watercraft. The swim course will impede the federal navigation channel.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations on specified waters of the Choptank River. The regulations will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 10, 2014. The regulated area includes all waters of Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, within and area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′13″ N, longitude 076°02′33″ W, thence south to latitude 38°33′50″ N, longitude 076°02′07″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°35′37″ N, longitude 076°03′09″ W, thence south to latitude 38°34′25″ N, longitude 076°04′05″ W, located at Cambridge, MD.
The effect of this proposed rule will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Vessels intending to transit the Choptank River through the regulated area will be allowed to safely transit the regulated area only when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander has deemed it safe to do so. The Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and the official patrol on scene.
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.
The economic impact of this rulemaking is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced for only 6 hours; (2) the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation, yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary; (3) although the regulated area applies to the entire width of the Choptank River, persons and vessels will be able to transit safely through a portion of the regulated area once the last participant has cleared that portion of the regulated area and when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. 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 rulemaking may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Choptank River encompassed within the special local regulations from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 10, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 rulemaking 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 rulemaking 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 rulemaking 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rulemaking and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 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 special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rulemaking is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2) With the exception of participants, all persons desiring to transit the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. To seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410–576–2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any participant in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(4) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF–FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.
(d) Enforcement period: This section will be enforced from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 10, 2014.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local regulation on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico surrounding the island of Key West, Florida during the 38th Annual Swim around Key West on June 28, 2014. The event entails a large number of participants who will begin at Smather's Beach and swim one full circle clockwise around the island of Key West. The proposed special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the spectators, participants, participating support vessels and kayaks, and the general public during the event. The proposed special local regulation will consist of a moving area that will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of both the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and will prevent non-participant vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 17, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by docket number 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Ian G. Bowes, Sector Key West Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305) 292–8823, email
We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 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 in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under
The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public from the hazards associated with the event.
The 38th Annual Swim around Key West will take place on June 28, 2014. The event entails a large number of participants who will begin at Smather's Beach and swim one full circle clockwise around the island of Key West. The proposed special local regulation encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The special local regulation will be enforced on Saturday, June 28, 2014 from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. It consists of a moving race area where all persons and vessels, except those participating in the race or serving as safety vessels, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within these areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative. The race area will commence at Smather's Beach at 7:30 a.m., transit west to the area offshore of Fort Zach State Park, north through Key West Harbor, east through Fleming Cut, south on Cow Key Channel and west back to origin. Safety vessels will precede the first participating swimmers and follow the last participating swimmers. This event poses significant risks to participants, spectators, and the boating public because of the large number of swimmers and recreational vessels that are expected in the area of the event. The proposed special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with the event.
The proposed special local regulation will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on June 28, 2014. Persons and vessels who are neither participating in the race nor serving as safety vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at (305) 292–8727, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 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.
The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will only be enforced for eight hours; (2) vessel traffic in the area is expected to be minimal during the enforcement period; (3) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico encompassed within the special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on June 28, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this proposed rule will not have a significant
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rulemaking 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 rulemaking 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this proposed 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 will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rulemaking elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This 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 proposed rule is not an economically significant rulemaking and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded 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 is categorically excluded, under Figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This proposed rule involves establishing a special local regulation that will be enforced for a total of eight hours. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard propses to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at (305) 292–8727, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes a priority for the Language Resource Centers (LRC) Program administered by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the priority to make international education opportunities available to more American students.
We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Michelle Guilfoil. Telephone: (202) 502–7625 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 6099, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1123.
Through the LRC Program, the Department makes awards to institutions of higher education or consortia of institutions of higher education to establish, strengthen, and operate centers that serve as resources for improving the Nation's capacity for teaching and learning foreign languages through teacher training, research, materials development, and dissemination projects. The objective of the LRC Program is to increase the national capacity in world language instruction and learning and to promote the research and dissemination of effective language instruction materials and techniques, among other allowable activities.
We propose a priority for applications that propose collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or community college. We intend
Research data indicate that minority students are less likely to have access to, or consider academic programs that provide the requisite training for careers in international service, including study abroad and area studies. (Tillman, “Diversity in Education Workshop Summary Report”, September, 2010.)
Among the barriers preventing these students from pursuing international studies are a lack of exposure to international opportunities, and lack of access to information, including information about international careers. (Belyavina and Bhandari, “Increasing Diversity in International Careers: Economic Challenges and Solutions”, International Institute of Education, November 2011.)
We believe that by encouraging LRC institutions and MSIs and community colleges to jointly plan, conduct, and implement activities, the international programming, student instruction, career advising, and faculty development opportunities on all campuses will be strengthened and expanded. These collaborations also enhance institutional capacity to recruit students into international studies and foreign language training.
We believe that successful institutional collaborations between LRC institutions and MSIs and community colleges will increase the access of traditionally underserved populations to opportunities for foreign language learning and the visibility of international and foreign language programs and activities on the campuses of MSIs and community colleges.
For this priority, we propose a definition of “Minority-Serving Institution” that would include institutions eligible to receive assistance under §§ 316 through 320 of part A or under part B of Title III or under Title V of the HEA. Title III reflects our national interest in supporting those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and minority students so that access to, and quality of, postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. Title V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions because of the high percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at high risk of not enrolling or graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was designed to reduce the rising disparity between the enrollment of non-Hispanic white students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education.
Accordingly, we propose to use this definition of MSI because both Title III and Title V programs target college student populations that are underrepresented in international education, and we would like to increase the representation of these groups through collaboration between Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI grantee institutions.
Because the purpose of the priority is to make international education opportunities available to more American students, we propose a definition of “community college” for use with this priority that is broader than the definition in the HEA. The definition of “junior or community college” in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes institutions that award bachelor's and graduate degrees. For the purpose of this priority, we propose to include in the definition of “community college” institutions that offer bachelor's or graduate degrees if more than 50 percent of the degrees and certificates they award are degrees and certificates that are not bachelor's or graduate degrees. We propose this definition to include institutions that serve significant numbers of students enrolled in programs traditionally offered by community colleges, such as associate degree and certificate programs.
Applications that propose significant and sustained collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) (as defined in this notice) or a community college (as defined in this notice). These activities must be designed to incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum of the MSI or community college and to improve foreign language instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
For the purposes of this priority:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)). The Department plans to revise the information collection for the LRC Program by including more detailed guidance to assist applicants in responding to the Evaluation Plan criterion in §§ 655.31 and 669.21 of the application; and by requiring one new performance measure form (PMF). The PMF will require applicants to identify project goals and project-specific measures for the LRC Program project they propose to conduct. Information will also be provided on how applicants, should they become grantees, will meet and report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures that have been developed for the LRC Program.
The IFLE Office developed this PMF so that applicants may propose projects with high-quality implementation plans at the outset and will require them to lay a stronger foundation for reporting progress and performance results. Additionally, the form will provide the Department information that is more useful and valid in demonstrating to Congress and other stakeholders the impact of LRC project.
This form may result in some additional time requirements in the application preparation, but will reduce the total burden hours for future grantee reporting as the form is designed for easy data collection and reporting. This form also facilitates the process of developing a sound evaluation plan during the application phase of the process.
The Evaluation Plan criterion in the LRC Program regulations evaluates “the quality of the evaluation plan for the project” and whether “the methods of evaluation are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable,” among other factors. We will include in the application detailed guidance on how to respond to this criterion in a more comprehensive and compelling manner.
In order to standardize the kind of performance data to be requested from applicants, we have developed a project-specific PMF and a GPRA PMF. These forms contain the same elements: (a) Project goal statement; (b) Performance measures; (c) Activities; (d) Data/Indicators; (e) Frequency; (f) Data Source; and (g) Baseline and Targets, but the purposes for the forms differ.
Applicants will submit a project-specific form for each project goal that the institutions have deemed as important to the proposed LRC project. For that reason, the total number of project-specific PMFs in each application will vary. Applicants will also be provided with a sample GPRA PMF for reference purposes.
We expect the new evaluation plan for this information collection will increase the applicant burden by an estimated 20 hours per response for a total burden of 100 hours. We believe that this additional time will improve the quality of the submitted applications, and subsequently improve the application review, grant making, and performance reporting processes. When awards are made, grantees will already be fully aware of reporting requirements.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to
Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in the regulations.gov site.
We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which is available at
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the Information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond.
This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed Priorities.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes two priorities for the National Resource Centers (NRC) Program administered by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the priority to address a gap in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted from the instruction, training, and outreach available at national resource centers and to address a shortage in the number of teachers entering the teaching profession with international education and world language training certification and credentials.
We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Cheryl E. Gibbs. Telephone: (202) 502–7634 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirements of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 6083, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1122.
The NRC Program is authorized by section 602 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Through this program, the Department makes awards to institutions of higher education, or consortia of institutions of higher education, to establish, strengthen, or operate nationally recognized foreign language and area or international studies centers or programs. Grant awards may be used to support undergraduate centers or comprehensive centers that provide training at undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels.
The objective of the NRC Program is to increase the national capacity in world language instruction and learning, instruction and research on issues in world affairs, and instruction, outreach, and teacher training in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the world languages are used, among other allowable activities.
We are proposing two priorities to address a gap in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted from the instruction, training, and outreach available at national resource centers and to address a shortage in the number of teachers entering the teaching profession with international education and world language training certification and credentials.
We first propose a priority for applications that propose collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or a community college. Currently the National Resource Centers collaborate with MSIs and community colleges only ad hoc. This, however, limits the extent to which the instruction, training, and professional development resources are regularly available to and accessed by students and faculty at MSIs and community colleges. We believe that by requiring NRC institutions and MSIs and community colleges to jointly plan, conduct, and implement activities, the international programming, student instruction, career advising, and faculty development opportunities on all campuses will be strengthened and expanded. These collaborations also enhance institutional capacity to recruit students into international studies and foreign language training.
Research data indicate that minority students are less likely to have access to, or consider academic programs that provide the requisite training for careers in international service, including study abroad and area studies. (Tillman, “Diversity in Education Workshop Summary Report”, September, 2010.)
Among the barriers preventing these students from pursuing international studies are a lack of exposure to international opportunities, and lack of access to information, including information about international careers. (Belyavina and Bhandari, “Increasing Diversity in International Careers: Economic Challenges and Solutions”, International Institute of Education, November 2011.)
We believe that by specifying the types of institutional collaborations that the National Resource Centers must engage in, and the types of collaborative activities they must conduct, the activities are more likely both to have a meaningful and measurable effect on students and faculty at MSIs and community colleges and be institutionalized and sustained. We also believe that successful institutional collaborations of this nature will increase the access of traditionally underserved populations to opportunities for international and foreign language learning and the visibility of international and foreign language programs and activities on the campuses of MSIs and community colleges. For this priority, we propose a definition of “Minority-Serving Institution” that would include institutions eligible to receive assistance under §§ 316 through 320 of part A of Title III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
The Department would use this definition because both Title III and Title V programs target college student populations that are underrepresented in international education. The Department would like to increase the representation of these groups through collaborations between Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI institutions.
Title III reflects our national interest to provide support to those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and minority students so that equality of access and quality of postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. Under the Title III, institutions may receive designation of eligibility depending on their submitted institutional evidence documenting their student demographic data.
Title V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) because of the high percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at risk of not enrolling in or graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was designed to reduce disparities between the enrollment of non-Hispanic white students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education, which continue to rise.
Because the purpose of this priority to extend the reach of NRCs to institutions that have benefitted less from the instruction, training, and outreach the NRCs make available, we propose a definition of “community college” for use with this priority that is broader than the definition in the HEA. The definition of “junior or community college” in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes institutions that
One of the invitational priorities for the current FY 2010–2013 NRC grant cycle encourages the NRCs to collaborate with all professional schools on their campuses, including schools of business, law, public health, journalism, and education. We propose the second priority to focus specifically on collaborations with the college or school of education on the NRC campus. This targeted collaboration is designed to help provide future teachers with the training required to teach world languages and international studies courses. This cadre of teachers is vital to teaching students to live and work in a world with diverse peoples, languages, and cultures that are ever more interconnected.
This priority both supports the teacher training purpose of the NRC Program and contributes to the vision for teaching and leading reflected in the Department's Blueprint for Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT), which aims, among other things, to elevate and transform teaching and learning so that all students are prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century. Research compiled during the preparation of the RESPECT blueprint concluded that students with effective teachers perform at higher levels, and have higher graduation rates, higher college-going rates, higher levels of civic participation, and higher lifetime earnings. The research also concluded that attracting a high-performing and diverse pool of talented individuals to become teachers is a critical priority (
This priority would promote the increased integration of international, intercultural, and global perspectives in teacher education and would enhance the capabilities of teachers to provide instruction in foreign languages and international and area studies.
The priorities are:
For the purpose of this priority:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The Department plans to revise the information collection for the NRC Program by including more detailed guidance to assist applicants in responding to the Impact and Evaluation selection criterion in §§ 656.21 and 656.22 of the NRC Program regulations and by requiring a new performance measure form (PMF). The PMF will require applicants to identify project goals and project-specific measures for the NRC Program project they propose to conduct. Information will also be provided on how applicants, should they become grantees, will meet and report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures that have been developed for the NRC Program.
The IFLE Office developed this PMF so that applicants may propose projects with high-quality implementation plans at the outset and will require them to lay a stronger foundation for reporting progress and performance results. Additionally, the form will provide the Department information that is more useful and valid in demonstrating to Congress and other stakeholders the impact of NRC projects.
And finally, the PMF is designed to provide a standardized format that applicants can use to present performance information in their applications. The PMF requests the following: (a) Project goal statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/Indices; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and (g) Baseline and targets.
We will also include in the information collection detailed guidance on how applicants can respond to the “Impact and Evaluation” criterion in a more comprehensive and compelling manner.
In order to mitigate against a significant increase in respondent burden, applicants will be required to complete only items (a), (b), and (c) on the PMF when they submit their FY 2014 grant applications. If the application is recommended for funding, we will require the submission of fully completed forms.
We anticipate that the Impact and Evaluation narrative and the PMFs may result in some additional time requirements in the application preparation, but will reduce the total burden hours for performance reporting because the form is designed to facilitate data collection and reporting. We expect the new evaluation plan for this information collection will increase the applicant burden by an estimated 50 hours per response for a total burden of 450 hours per response. We believe that this additional time will improve the quality of the submitted applications and subsequently improve the application review, grant making, and performance reporting processes. When the awards are made, grantees will already be fully aware of the reporting requirements.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to
Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in the regulations.gov site.
We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the Information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes a priority for the FLAS Program administered by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years.
We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Kate Maloney. Telephone: (202) 502–7509 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments about this notice in Room 6083, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC, time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1122.
Applicant institutions addressing the priority would describe a two-tier selection process. From all of the student fellowship applications submitted, the institution would first select a pool of qualified applicants based strictly on merit, as defined in § 657.3 of the FLAS Program regulations. From this pool of qualified applicants, the institution could then give competitive preference to students who demonstrate financial need as defined in Part F of title IV of the HEA.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this proposed priority only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
The information collection for the FLAS Program will be revised to include an evaluation guide that provides applicants with more substantive guidance on how to respond, in a more compelling manner, to the Impact and Evaluation selection criterion found in section 657.21 of the FLAS Program regulations. The guide also includes instructions for completing the new performance measure forms (PMFs) that applicants are required to include in their submitted proposals. For each project element that applicants propose to evaluate during the project period, they must include a performance measure form indicating the project-specific measure for that element.
The IFLE Office developed the PMF so that applicants can include measurable outcomes for their FLAS projects, based on the goals and objectives they intend to accomplish. The PMF is designed to help applicants to develop a more cohesive evaluation plan focusing the applicant's attention on specific benchmarks and indicators that will better demonstrate their progress toward achieving their goals and objectives. The PMF should assist applicants in proposing high-quality implementation plans at the outset for reporting progress and performance results. Additionally, the information and data collected via the forms will enable the Department to provide Congress and other stakeholders with more concrete evidence to demonstrate the impact of FLAS projects. And finally, the PMF is designed to provide a universal format that applicants can use to present the performance information in their applications. The PMF requests the following: (a) Project goal statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/Indices; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and, (g) Baseline and targets.
In order to mitigate against increasing respondent burden, applicants will be required to complete only items (a), (b), and (c) on the PMF when they submit their FY14 grant applications. If the application is recommended for funding, we will require the submission of fully completed forms. The Department estimates that the application, expanded evaluation criterion guidance, and the PMF will require an estimated 500 hours to complete. This represents an additional time burden of 100 hours over the 2010 application.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to OIRA
Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in the regulations.gov site.
We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which is available at
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond.
This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed priorities.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes priorities for the CIBE Program administered by the International and Foreign Language Education office (IFLE). The Acting Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years.
We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Timothy Duvall
Telephone: (202) 502–7622 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments about this notice in Room 6069, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1130–1.
We are proposing two priorities. The first addresses a need to prepare international business students to enter the workforce more readily and the second addresses a gap in the types of institutions, faculty, and students that have historically benefitted from the instruction, training, and outreach available at centers for international business education.
We first propose a priority for applicants that propose to collaborate with one or more professional associations and/or businesses on activities designed to expand employment opportunities for international business students, such as internships and work-study opportunities. In order to meet this proposed priority, an applicant must propose to collaborate with one or more professional associations, businesses, or firms on activities designed to expand employment opportunities for international business students, such as internships and work/study opportunities.
The proposed priority encourages collaborative activities between CIBEs and international businesses or professional associations to create meaningful internship opportunities for students that will enhance their employment prospects. Internship opportunities that integrate classroom learning with real work experience are often the result of intentional and collaborative efforts between universities and industries. Meaningful internship experiences enhance graduates' prospects for meaningful employment, and they lead to graduates who are better able to apply their learning in the workplace, earn a salary that enables them to be self-supporting, and repay their loans rather than incurring further debt. Moreover, students with international business experience are better prepared to contribute to the work of their employers, which will enhance the ability of United States' businesses to prosper in an international economy.
We propose a second priority for applications that propose collaborative activities with a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) or a community college. Currently the Centers for International Business Education collaborate with MSIs and community colleges only ad hoc. This, however, limits the extent to which the instruction, training, and professional development resources are regularly available to and accessed by students and faculty at MSIs and community colleges. We believe that by requiring CIBE institutions and MSIs and community colleges to jointly plan, conduct, and implement activities, the international programming, student instruction, career advising, and faculty development opportunities on all campuses will be strengthened and expanded. These collaborations also enhance institutional capacity to recruit students into international business training.
We believe that by specifying the types of institutional collaborations that the CIBEs must engage in, and the types of collaborative activities they must conduct, the activities are more likely both to have a meaningful and
For this priority, we propose a definition of “Minority-Serving Institution” that would include institutions eligible to receive assistance under §§ 316 through 320 of part A of Title III, under part B of Title III, or under Title V of the HEA.
The Department would use this definition because both Title III and Title V programs target college student populations that are underrepresented in international education. The Department would like to increase the representation of these groups through collaborations between Title III/Title V institutions and Title VI institutions.
Title III reflects our national interest to provide support to those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and minority students so that equality of access and quality of postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. Under the Title III, institutions may receive designation of eligibility depending on their submitted institutional evidence documenting their student demographic data.
Title V targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions because of the high percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at risk of not enrolling in or graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was designed to reduce disparities between the enrollment of non-Hispanic white students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education, which continue to rise.
We propose a definition of “community college” for use with this priority that is broader than the definition in the HEA. The definition of “junior or community college” in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes institutions that award bachelor's and graduate degrees. For the purpose of this priority, we propose to include in the definition of “community college” institutions that offer bachelor's or graduate degrees if more than 50 percent of the degrees and certificates they award are degrees and certificates that are not bachelor's or graduate degrees. We propose this definition to include institutions that serve significant numbers of students enrolled in programs traditionally offered by community colleges, such as associate degree and certificate programs.
The priorities are:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
The proposed priority will require minor changes to an information collection already approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1840–0616. In addition, the Department has developed new Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures for this program, which will result in significant changes and increased burden hours for this collection. As required by the PRA, the Department is submitting 1840–0616 to OMB for a revised information collection clearance concurrently with the publication of this notice of proposed priority and definition.
This new information collection for the CIBE Program will include an evaluation guide that provides applicants with more substantive guidance on how to respond in a more compelling manner to the Impact and Evaluation selection criterion. The guide also will include instructions for completing the new performance measure forms (PMFs) that applicants are required to include in their submitted proposals. For each project element that applicants propose to evaluate during the project period, they must include a performance measure form indicating the project-specific measure for that element.
The IFLE Office developed the PMF so that applicants can include measurable outcomes for their CIBE projects, based on the goals and objectives they intend to accomplish. The PMF is designed to help applicants to develop a more cohesive evaluation plan focusing the applicant's attention on specific benchmarks and indicators that will better demonstrate their progress toward achieving their goals and objectives. The PMF should assist applicants in proposing high-quality implementation plans at the outset for reporting progress and performance results. Additionally, the information and data collected via the forms will enable the Department to provide Congress and other stakeholders with more concrete evidence to demonstrate the impact of CIBE projects. And finally, the PMF is designed to provide a universal format that applicants can use to present the performance information in their applications. The PMF requests the following: (a) Project goal statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/Indices; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and, (g) Baseline and targets.
In order to mitigate against increasing respondent burden, applicants will be required to complete only items (a), (b), and (c) on the PMF when they submit their FY14 grant applications. If the application is recommended for funding, we will require the submission of fully-completed forms.
The estimated increase in burden hours for CIBE applicants in responding to the new information collection is 100 hours for a new total of 500 hours.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to
Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in the regulations.gov site.
We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which is available at
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the Information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Proposed priority.
The Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes a priority for the UISFL Program administered by the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) Office. The Acting Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the priority to address a gap in the types of institutions, faculty and students that have historically benefited from international education opportunities.
We must receive your comments on or before April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Tanyelle Richardson Telephone: (202) 502–7626 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments about the proposed priority in Room 6099, 1990 K St. NW., Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
20 U.S.C. 1124.
Through the UISFL Program, the Department makes awards to institutions of higher education, consortia of institutions of higher education, partnerships between nonprofit educational organizations and institutions of higher education, or public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including professional and scholarly associations, to plan, develop, and carry out programs to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages.
The objective of the UISFL Program is to develop and improve undergraduate curricula, programs, courses, and
The Department proposes a priority for UISFL applications from Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)(as defined in this notice) or community colleges (as defined in this notice), whether individually or as part of a consortium. If the MSI or community college is the lead applicant for a consortium, the application will receive a greater number of points under this priority than it would if the MSI or community college is a partner in a consortia application and not the lead applicant.
This priority aims to increase the number of MSIs and community colleges that become grantees under this program, in order to increase their students' access to academic coursework and instructional activities and training that would better prepare them for the 21st century global economy, careers in international service, and for lifelong engagement with the diverse communities in which they will live, whether at home or abroad. It also aims to increase the access of students attending MSIs and community colleges to academic coursework, instructional activities and training related to foreign language and international studies, ultimately increasing access to careers in international fields for these students. The Department's “International Strategy” expresses the importance of strengthening “the global competencies of all U.S. students, including those from traditionally disadvantaged groups.” Community colleges and MSIs are heavily populated by students from traditionally disadvantaged groups. Currently, opportunities for international studies, foreign language learning, study abroad and other international studies and activities tend to be more limited at two-year institutions than at four-year institutions. In addition, community colleges and MSIs account for a small percentage of all grant recipients in programs funded under title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Targeting outreach to these institutions will expand the reach of the UISFL program to traditionally disadvantaged groups.
For this priority, we propose a definition of “Minority-Serving Institution” that includes institutions eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.
The Department proposes to use this definition because both title III and title V programs target college student populations that are underrepresented in international education.
Title III of the HEA reflects our national interest in supporting those institutions of higher education that serve low-income and minority students so that access to, and quality of, postsecondary education opportunities may be enhanced for all students. Under title III of the HEA, institutions may receive a designation of eligibility depending on their submitted institutional evidence documenting their students' income and demographic data.
Title V of the HEA targets Hispanic-Serving Institutions because of the large percentage of Hispanic Americans who are at high risk of not enrolling or not graduating from institutions of higher education. The law was designed to reduce the disparity between the enrollment of non-Hispanic white students and Hispanic students in postsecondary education, which continues to rise.
We also propose a definition of “community college” that is broader than the definition in the HEA. The proposed definition of “community college” in this notice includes some institutions that award bachelor's and graduate degrees. The definition of “junior or community college” in section 312(f) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)) excludes such institutions. The Department proposes this definition so that institutions that offer bachelor's or graduate degrees are eligible to apply for funding under this program, but only if more than 50 percent of the degrees they award are degrees and certificates that are not bachelor's or graduate degrees. The Department proposes this definition in order to include institutions that serve significant numbers of students enrolled in programs traditionally offered by community colleges, such as associate degree and certificate programs.
An application from a consortium that has an MSI or community college as the lead applicant will receive more points under this priority than applications where the MSI or community college is a partner in the consortium but not the lead applicant.
A consortium must undertake activities designed to incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum of the MSI or community college and to improve foreign language and international or area studies instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
For the purpose of this priority:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
We will announce the final priority in a notice in the
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing the proposed priority only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).
The Department plans to revise the information collection for the UISFL Program by including more detailed guidance to assist applicants in responding to the Plan of Evaluation selection criterion found in sections 655.31 and 669.21; and, by requiring one new performance measure form (PMF). The PMF will require applicants to identify project goals and project-specific measures for the UISFL project they propose to conduct. Information will also be provided on how applicants, should they become grantees, will meet and report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures that have been developed for the UISFL Program. The IFLE Office developed this PMF so that applicants may propose projects with high-quality implementation plans at the outset and that will require them to lay a stronger foundation for reporting progress and performance results. Additionally, the form will give the Department the capacity to collect and analyze information that is more useful and valid in demonstrating to Congress and other stakeholders the impact of these programs on the entities they serve. This form may result in some additional time requirements in the application preparation, but will reduce the total burden hours for future grantee reporting as the templates are designed for easy data collection and reporting. This form also facilitates the process of developing a sound evaluation plan during the application phase of the process.
The Plan of Evaluation criterion in the UISFL Program regulations evaluates “the quality of the evaluation plan for the project,” and provides that “the methods of evaluation are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable” among other factors. The detailed guidance that the Department will include in the information collection (application) advises applicants on how to respond to this criterion in a more comprehensive and compelling manner.
In order to standardize the kind of performance data to be requested from applicants, the Department developed a project-specific PMF and a GPRA PMF. These forms contain the same elements: (a) Project goal statement; (b) Performance measure; (c) Project activity; (d) Data/Indicators; (e) Frequency of collection; (f) Data source; and (g) Baseline and targets, but the purposes for the forms differ.
Applicants will submit a project-specific form for each project-specific goal that the institutions have deemed as important to the proposed UISFL project. For that reason, the total number of project-specific PMFs in each application will vary. Applicants will also be provided with a sample GPRA PMF for reference purposes.
The Department expects the new evaluation plan for this information collection will increase the applicant burden by an estimated 10 hours per response for a total burden of 110 hours. The Department believes that this additional time will improve the quality of the submitted applications, and subsequently improve the application review, grant making, and performance
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email to
Please be advised that the public comment period for submitting comments on the notice of proposed priorities (NPP) is the same for submitting comments on the information collection (IC); therefore, use the NPP Docket number as the identifier for both sets of comments. You may, however, submit the NPP comments and the IC comments separately in the regulations.gov site.
We have prepared an ICR for this collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which is available at
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the Information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed Action; determination with request for comments and notice of opportunity for public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a proposed determination that the reduction in expenditures of non-Federal funds for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in support of its continuing air program under section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), for the calendar year 2013 is a result of non-selective reductions in expenditures. This determination, when final, will permit the SCAQMD to receive grant funding for FY2014 from the EPA under section 105 of the Clean Air Act.
Comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be received by EPA at the address stated below by April 17, 2014.
Submit comments, identified by docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0120, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal Portal:
2. Email to:
3. Mail to: Gary Lance (Air-8), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Gary Lance, EPA Region IX, Grants & Program Integration Office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972–3992, fax: (415) 947–3579 or email address at
Section 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides grant support for the continuing air programs of eligible state, local, and tribal agencies. In accordance with CAA section 105(a)(1)(A) and 40 CFR 35.145(a), the Regional Administrator may provide air pollution control agencies up to three-fifths of the approved costs of implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. Section 105 contains two cost-sharing provisions which
A section 105 recipient must submit a final financial status report no later than 90 days from the close of its grant period that documents all of its federal and non-federal expenditures for the completed period. The recipient seeking an adjustment to its MOE for that period must provide the rationale and the documentation necessary to enable EPA to make a determination that a nonselective reduction has occurred. In order to expedite that determination, the recipient must provide details of the budget action and the comparative fiscal impacts on all the jurisdiction's executive branch agencies, the recipient agency itself, and the agency's air program. The recipient should identify any executive branch agencies or programs that should be excepted from comparison and explain why. The recipient must provide evidence that the air program is not being singled out for a reduction or being disproportionately reduced. Documentation in two key areas will be needed: Budget data specific to the recipient's air program, and comparative budget data between the recipient's air program, the agency containing the air program, and the other executive branch agencies. EPA may also request information from the recipient about how impacts on its program operations will affect its ability to meet its CAA obligations and requirements; and documentation which explains the cause of the reduction, such as legislative changes or the issuance of a new executive order.
In FY2013, EPA awarded the SCAQMD $5,135,895, which represented approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget. In FY–2014, EPA intends to award the SCAQMD an estimate of $5,039,863, which represents approximately 5% of the SCAQMD budget.
SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY–2012 indicated that SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level was 108,291,832. SCAQMD's final Federal Financial Report for FY–2013 indicates that SCAQMD's maintenance of effort (MOE) level is at $105,096,053.
The projected MOE is not sufficient to meet the MOE requirements under the CAA section 105 because it is not equal to or greater than the MOE for the previous fiscal year. In order for the SCAQMD to be eligible to receive its FY2014 CAA section 105 grant, EPA must make a determination, after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing, that the reduction in expenditures is attributable to a non-selective reduction in the expenditures in the programs of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The shortfall stems from a decline of 8.9% in stationary sources revenue from FY2008–09 to FY2012–13, as reflected in the table below:
The SCAQMD is a single-purpose agency whose primary source of funding is emission fee revenue. It is the “unit of government for section 105 (c)(2) purposes.”
The decline in stationary source revenues would have been even more pronounced had it not been for the SCAQMD Governing Board-adopted fee increases totaling 7.9% over the last four years. The net loss of stationary revenues has given SCAQMD no choice but to reduce its budget and find less costly ways to meet its mandates. Over the past several years, actions were undertaken by SCAQMD to balance its budget by reducing overall expenditures, including deleting or not funding vacant positions, implementing a hiring freeze, enacting pension reform, reducing services and supplies expenditures, and utilizing reserves.
Since FY2009–10, SCAQMD has supplemented revenues with $27.4 million in reserves to balance the budget and meet program requirements.
In addition to the conditions described above, an increase in non-recurrent capital expenditures has also contributed to the decrease in the FY13 MOE level.
Based on: (1) SCAQMD's inability to levy taxes, (2) regulated and voluntary emissions reductions, (3) the general economic downturn, (4) voter approval of Proposition 26, (5) an overall decline in stationary source revenue, (6) expenditure cuts, (7) use of financial reserves to balance the budget, and (8) an increase in non-recurrent capital expenditures, the request for a reset of SCAQMD's MOE meets the criteria for a non-selective reduction determination.
Although SCAQMD receives less than 5 percent of its support from the section 105 grant, the loss of that funding would seriously impact SCAQMD's ability to carry out its clean air program. The revenue generated from Stationary Sources over the last 10 years is detailed below.
The SCAQMD's MOE reduction resulted from a loss of revenues due to circumstances beyond its control. EPA proposes to determine that the SCAQMD lowering the FY2013 MOE level to $105,096,053 meets the CAA section 105(c) (2) criteria as resulting from a non-selective reduction of expenditures.
This notice constitutes a request for public comment and an opportunity for public hearing as required by the Clean Air Act. All written comments received by April 17, 2014 on this proposal will be considered. EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal only if a written request for such is received by EPA at the address above by April 17, 2014. If no written request for a hearing is received, EPA will proceed to the final determination. While notice of the final determination will not be published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) which were submitted to EPA on July 12, 2012. This submission revises two heavy duty diesel vehicle idling rules that are applicable in Kansas City and St. Louis. This revision provides clarity to the rules in the applicability section by listing owners and operators of passenger load/unload locations where commercial, public and institutional heavy-duty vehicles load or unload passengers. The affected parties were unintentionally omitted from the applicability section of the rule even though they are required to comply with the rule in the general provisions section. These revisions do not have an adverse affect on air quality. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comment by April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0817, by mail to Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7028, or by email at
In the final rules section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment and reply comment period.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) extends the deadline for filing comments and reply comments on section IV.B of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the special access proceeding. This extension is necessary to allow time for the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to collect data on the special access market prior to the submission of comments and replies.
Comments for section IV.B are due on or before October 6, 2014, and reply comments are due on or before November 17, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by WC Docket No. 05–25 and RM–10593 by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site:
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
William Layton, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202–418–0868 or
This is a synopsis of the Commission's document, WC Docket No. 05–25, RM–10593; DA 14–302, released March 5, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and
On December 11, 2012, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requiring providers and purchasers of special access and certain entities providing “best efforts” service to submit data and information for a comprehensive evaluation of the special access market. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) extends the deadline for filing comments and reply comments on section IV.B of the
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by SSR Communications, Inc., permittee of FM Station KIMW, Channel 288A, Haynesville, Louisiana, proposing the allotment of Channel 286A to Haynesville, Louisiana, as a “backfill” allotment to prevent removal of Haynesville's potential first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 286A can be allotted to Haynesville consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with a site restriction 4.6 kilometers (2.9 miles) south of the community. The reference coordinates are 33–00–12 NL and 93–08–19 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before April 21, 2014, and reply comments on or before May 6, 2014.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Matthew K. Wesolowski, SSR Communications, Inc., 740 Highway 49 North, Suite R, Flora, MS 39071.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 14–37, adopted February 27, 2014, and released February 28, 2014. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or via email
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336 and 339.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that a soybean event developed by BASF Plant Sciences, LP designated as BPS–CV127–9, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to treatment with imidazolinone herbicides, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by BASF Plant Sciences, LP in its petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of available scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous notices announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and its associated environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and finding of no significant impact.
You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the comments we received at
Supporting documents are also available on the APHIS Web site at
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–3954, email:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason To Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 09–015–01p) from BASF Plant Sciences, LP (BASF) of Research Triangle Park, NC, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of soybean (
According to our process
APHIS received 75 comments on the petition. Several of these comments included electronic attachments consisting of a consolidated document of many identical or nearly identical letters, for a total of 4,676 comments. APHIS decided, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues. According to our public review process for such petitions (see footnote 1), APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft environmental assessment (EA) and plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a
In a notice (see footnote 2) published in the
After reviewing and evaluating the comments received during the comment period on the draft EA and PPRA and other information, APHIS has prepared a final EA. The EA has been prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status of BASF's CV127 soybean. The EA was prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on APHIS' analysis of field and laboratory data submitted by BASF, references provided in the petition, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, the PPRA, comments provided by the public, and information provided in APHIS' response to those public comments, APHIS has determined that BASF's CV127 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and therefore is no longer subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain GE organisms.
Copies of the signed determination document, PPRA, final EA, FONSI, and response to comments, as well as the previously published petition and supporting documents, are available as indicated in the
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton designated as DAS–8191Ø-7, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to the herbicides 2,4–D and glufosinate. The petition has been submitted in accordance with our regulations concerning the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms and products. We are making the DAS petition available for review and comment to help us identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 19, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS–2013–0113, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
The petition is also available on the APHIS Web site at:
Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–3954, email:
Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
APHIS has received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 13–262–01p) from Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) of Indianapolis, IN, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of cotton (
As described in the petition, DAS developed DAS–8191Ø–7 cotton using
DAS has submitted information on the use of 2,4–D on DAS–8191Ø–7 cotton to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for evaluating and approving the use of any herbicides or pesticides on plants, including GE plants.
Field tests conducted under APHIS oversight allowed for evaluation in a natural agricultural setting while imposing measures to minimize the risk of persistence in the environment after completion of the tests. Data are gathered on multiple parameters and used by the applicant to evaluate agronomic characteristics and product performance. These and other data are used by APHIS to determine if the new variety poses a plant pest risk.
Paragraph (d) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the
In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations and our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. The petition is available for public review and comment, and copies are available as indicated under
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. Any substantive issues identified by APHIS based on our review of the petition and our evaluation and analysis of comments will be considered in the development of our decisionmaking documents.
As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a plant pest risk assessment to assess its plant pest risk and the appropriate environmental documentation—either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS)—in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to provide the Agency with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the petition request. For petitions for which APHIS prepares an EA, APHIS will follow our published process for soliciting public comment (see footnote 2) and publish a separate notice in the
7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (C–SAC). The C–SAC will meet in a plenary session on April 10–11, 2014. The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.
April 10 and April 11, 2014. On April 10, the C–SAC meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. On April 11, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 1:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H182, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301–763–6590. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1–800–877–8339.
Members of the C–SAC are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau. The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).
The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions on April 11, 2014. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Committee Liaison Officer named above. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Thursday, March 27, 2014. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and 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.
Topics to be discussed:
On November 12, 2013, the San Francisco Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 3, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Phillips 66 Company, within Subzone 3E, in Rodeo, California.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Nogales-Santa Cruz Economic Development Foundation, Inc., grantee of FTZ 60, requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 12, 2014.
FTZ 60 was approved by the FTZ Board on October 15, 1980 (Board Order 164, 45 FR 70037, October 22, 1980) and the grant of authority for the zone was transferred from Border Industrial Development, Inc., to the Nogales-Santa Cruz Economic Development Foundation, Inc., on September 24, 1993 (Board Order 659, 58 FR 51614, October 4, 1993).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be all of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Nogales-Mariposa U.S.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone project to include existing Site 1 and Site 2 as “magnet” sites. The applicant is also requesting to expand the zone to include temporary Site 3 as a usage-driven site.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 19, 2014. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 2, 2014.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Elizabeth Eastwood or David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 and (202) 482–3693, respectively.
On September 3, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from Taiwan covering the period September 1, 2012, through August 31, 2013.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioner's withdrawal of its request was submitted within the 90-day period and, thus, is timely. Because the petitioner's withdrawal of request for an antidumping duty administrative review is timely and because no other party requested a review of the companies listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to the following companies: (1) Apex Trimmings; (2) Cheng Hsing; (3) Hubschercorp; (4) Multicolor; (5) Papillon (H.K.); (6) Papillon (Shanghai); (7) Roung Shu; (8) the Shienq Huong Group; (9) Yama Ribbons and Bows; (10) Yangzhou Bestpak; and (11) Yu Shin.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
In notice document 2014–05259 appearing on pages 13617–13619 in the issue of Tuesday, March 11, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 13617, in the third column, in the
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold the first meeting of its newly appointed members on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. The Board was re-chartered on August 2013, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the travel and tourism industry. At the meeting, members will be sworn-in and will begin a discussion of the work they will undertake during their term. They are expected to discuss issues impacting the travel and tourism industry, including travel promotion, visa policy, travel facilitation, infrastructure, Brand USA, public-private partnerships, and domestic travel and tourism issues, in addition to other topics. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at
Tuesday, April 8, 2014, 9 a.m.–11 a.m. and open for public comments 11 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT).
McCormick Place, 2310 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60616. The meeting room will be provided upon request.
Jennifer Pilat, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202–482–4501, email:
Comments may be submitted to Jennifer Pilat at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 25, 2014, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for identity and access management for the electric power sector. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Energy Sector program. Participation in the use case is open to all interested organizations.
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than April 17, 2014.
The NCCoE is located at 9600 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
Nate Lesser via email at
Each organization will be asked to identify which security platform components or capabilities it is offering. Product components or capabilities include one or more of the following:
Capability requirements of the Identity and Access Management for Electric Utilities Use Case are as follows:
Organizational requirements of the Identity and Access Management for Electric Utilities Use Case are as follows:
Additional details about the Identity and Access Management for Electric Utilities Use Case are available at
NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium agreement in the development of the Identity and Access Management for Electric Utilities capability. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each prospective participant will train NIST personnel as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations to the healthcare community. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will
Under the terms of the consortium agreement, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products, including IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the Identity and Access Management for Electric Utilities capability will be announced on the NCCoE Web site at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE Web site
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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).
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through the Information Collection Review page at
Paper copies can be obtained by:
• Email:
• Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 17, 2014 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Navy proposes to alter the system of records, N05820–1, entitled “Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction Files” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system will be used by International and Operational Law Division personnel in the performance of their official duties when monitoring and reporting foreign criminal litigation, foreign confinement, and legal hold status of the individuals involved.
Comments will be accepted on or before April 17, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Robin Patterson, Head, PA/FOIA Office (DNS–36), Department of the Navy, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350–2000, or by phone at (202) 685–6545.
The Department of the Navy's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on February 10, 2014, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction Files (April 12, 1999, 64 FR 17648).
Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Judge Advocate General (International and Operational Law Division), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066.”
Delete entry and replace with “Computerized summaries and paper copies of legal documents received and filed relative to each case, and other miscellaneous data about the particular case to include accused's name, duty station, rate, grade, unit identification code (UIC), duty station, date of incident and country of incident.”
Delete entry and replace with “Used by International and Operational Law Division personnel in the performance of their official duties when monitoring and reporting foreign criminal litigation, foreign confinement, and legal hold status of the individuals involved.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper file folders and/or electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “Files may be retrieved by name, date of incident and country of incident.”
Delete entry and replace with “Only personnel in the International and Operational Law Division with a need-to-know are authorized access. Offices are kept locked when not occupied. Computers are password protected.”
Delete entry and replace with “Policy Official: Judge Advocate General, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066.
The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (International and Operational Law), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (International and Operational Law Division), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066.
The request should be signed and include full name, a complete mailing address, grade, UIC, and duty station, as applicable.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (International and Operational Law), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066.
The request should be signed and include full name, a complete mailing address, grade, UIC, and duty station, as applicable.
The system manager may require an original signature or a notarized signature as a means of proving the identity of the individual requesting access to the records.”
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
Professional Development for Arts Educators (PDAE) Program Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
This priority is:
This priority supports professional development programs for K–12 arts educators and other instructional staff that use innovative instructional methods and current knowledge from education research and focus on—
(1) The development, enhancement, or expansion of standards-based arts education programs; or
(2) The integration of standards-based arts instruction with other core academic area content.
In order to meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the project for which it seeks funding is linked to State and national standards intended to enable all students to meet challenging expectations, and to improving student and school performance.
The term “national standards” was used, but not defined, in the 2005 NFP. Since then, the program has described “national standards” to mean the arts standards developed by the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations or another comparable set of national arts standards. The standards developed by the Consortium outline what students should know and be able to do in the arts. Although the program considers these standards “national standards,” these standards are not established or endorsed by the Department.
This priority is:
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.
An applicant
This priority is:
Projects that are designed to provide increased opportunities for high-quality professional development for K–12 arts educators and other instructional staff in integrating arts with STEM subjects.
To be eligible for PDAE Program funds, applicants must propose to carry out professional development programs for arts educators and other instructional staff of K–12 low-income children and youth by implementing projects in schools in which 50 percent or more of the children enrolled are from low-income families (based on the poverty criteria in Title I, section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Applicants will be required to provide evidence that they are serving such schools.
(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.
(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; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools.
20 U.S.C. 7271.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 or subsequent fiscal years 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, applicants may use the first 12 months of the project period 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; or
• A public or private agency, institution, or organization, including a museum, an arts education association, a library, a theater, or a community- or faith-based organization.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.351C.
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 competition. 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. The email notification should be sent to the program email address:
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 application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to limit the application (Part III) to the equivalent of no more than 50 single-sided pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ × 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 PDAE 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.
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.
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
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
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 PDAE 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;
• 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: Michelle J. Armstrong, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W214, Washington, DC 20202–5950. FAX: (202) 205–5630.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.351C), 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.
(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 significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.
(b) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.
(2)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project by considering the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(b) 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.
(3)
The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(b) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(c) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(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.
(c) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(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. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers 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.
5.
Michelle J. Armstrong, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W 214, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone (202) 453–6525 or by email:
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:00 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1864 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897–3737,
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
April 9, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; April 10, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
Hilton Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Edmund J. Synakowski, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW.; Washington, DC 20585–1290; Telephone: 301–903–4941.
Remote attendance of the FESAC meeting will be possible via ReadyTalk (
Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than April 2, 2014.
Ms. Katie Strangis, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202–586–8623 or email:
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 171,561.2 l kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (67.60% U), 115,975.4 kg of which is uranium, from Cameco Corporation (Cameco) in Port Hope, Ontario, Canada, to Urenco, Ltd. (URENCO) in Capenhurst Works, Chester, United Kingdom. The material, which is currently located at Cameco, will be used for toll enrichment by URENCO at its facility in Capenhurst, United Kingdom. The material was originally obtained by Cameco from Power Resources Inc., Cameco Resources-Crowe Butte Operation, and White Mesa Mill pursuant to export license XSOU8798.
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.
For the Department of Energy.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
In this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2014 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene.
The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective April 17, 2014 and will remain in effect until further notice.
Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–7892,
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202) 586–7432,
Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act) requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.
Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at
DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a
DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2014 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, and propane are based on simulations used to produce the February 2014, EIA
The 2014 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective April 17, 2014. They will remain in effect until further notice.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program has made available guidance on how it intends to respond to requests for modified versions of energy code compliance software.
Jeremiah Williams, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, Telephone: (202) 287–1941, Email:
Daniel Cohen, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: (202) 586–9523, Email:
The guidance described in this notice is also posted at
The Energy Conservation and Production Act, as amended, directs the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to provide technical assistance “to improve and implement State residential and commercial building energy efficiency codes” (42 U.S.C. 6833(d) and (e)). As part of this directive, to accelerate national code adoption and compliance, DOE's Building Energy Codes Program provides residential (RES
The IECC and ASHRAE 90.1, respectively, are typically referred to as the national model codes, as they are referenced specifically in federal statute (42 U.S.C. 6833(d) and (e)). Because many states adopt both the residential and commercial provisions of the IECC, and the IECC commercial provisions formally reference Standard 90.1 as alternative compliance path, COM
DOE has historically created a small number of custom versions of RES
(a) Current version of national model codes as published.
(b) State or local codes that are based on the current version of the national model codes with amendments that increase energy savings. Within this category, further delineations may be made based on the number and complexity of amendments. Energy saving amendments that have the potential to be incorporated into other state or national codes will generally take priority.
(c) Current versions of state or local codes not based on or fundamentally diverging from the model codes with energy savings equal to or greater than the current national model code.
Note that category (a) will be created automatically by DOE each time a new national model code is published. Creation of versions under categories (b) and (c) will only be considered when requested by states.
For (b) and (c), funds may be prioritized for states that have historically used fewer program resources. Also, maximum funding limits may be established for individual state requests based on the total budget available and the number of requests received. Amounts above the maximum would need to be paid for with state-provided funding.
DOE will not provide a custom version of RES
DOE will maintain on its Web site RES
If you have any questions please contact the DOE Building Energy Codes Program as identified above, or visit
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94–409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
March 20, 2014, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
* NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502–8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502–8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
10:00 a.m.
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Land Disposal Restrictions (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1442.22, OMB Control No. 2050–0085) 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 April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0737, to (1) EPA, either 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.
Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–5477; fax number: 703–308–8433; 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
The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing and Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources (40 CFR Part 63, Subparts RRRRRR, SSSSSS, and TTTTTT)” (EPA ICR No. 2274.04, OMB Control No. 2060–0606), 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 April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0355, 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.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (40 CFR part 60, Subpart CCCC) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2384.03, OMB Control No. 2060–0662), 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 April 17, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2013–0315, 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
There is also an increase in the total capital and O&M costs due to an increase in the number of respondents. In addition, this ICR corrects the number of respondents that have to maintain monitors, which also contributes to the increase in O&M costs.
There is also a decrease in the Agency burden and cost due to several corrections, primarily associated with the frequency of observing initial stack tests and reviewing excess emission reports.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice. Request for Nominations to the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) Advisory Committee.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates with expertise in bioethics to be considered for appointment to its Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) advisory committee. Anticipated vacancies will be filled by September 1, 2014. Sources in addition to this
Submit nominations by April 11, 2014.
HSRB members serve as special government employees or regular government employees. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for either two or three year terms with the possibility of reappointment for additional terms, with a maximum of six years of service. The HSRB usually meets up to four times a year and the typical workload for HSRB members is approximately 25 to 30 hours per meeting, including the time spent at the meeting. Responsibilities of HSRB members include reviewing extensive background materials prior to meetings of the Board, preparing draft responses to Agency charge questions, attending Board meetings, participating in the discussion and deliberations at these meetings, drafting assigned sections of meeting reports, and helping to finalize Board reports. EPA compensates special government employees for their time and provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
The qualifications of nominees for membership on the HSRB will be assessed in terms of the specific expertise sought for the HSRB. Qualified nominees who agree to be considered further will be included in a “Short List”. The Short List of nominee names and biographical sketches will be posted for 14 calendar days for public comment on the HSRB Web site:
Members of the HSRB are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR Part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR Part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, each nominee will be asked to submit confidential financial information that fully discloses, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The information provided is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to the public. Before a candidate is considered further for service on the HSRB, EPA will evaluate each candidate to assess whether there is any conflict of financial interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or
Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including: The professional background, expertise and experience that would contribute to the diversity of perspectives of the committee; interpersonal, verbal and written communication skills and other attributes that would contribute to the HSRB's collaborative process; consensus building skills; absence of any financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, or lack of independence, or bias; and the availability to attend meetings and administrative sessions, participate in teleconferences, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare recommendations and advice in reports.
Nominations should include a resume or curriculum vitae providing the nominee's educational background, qualifications, leadership positions in national associations or professional societies, relevant research experience and publications along with a short (one page) biography describing how the nominee meets the above criteria and other information that may be helpful in evaluating the nomination, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.
To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, nominees are requested to inform the Agency of how you learned of this opportunity.
Final selection of HSRB members is a discretionary function of the Agency and will be announced on the HSRB Web site at
Submit your nominations by April 11, 2014, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2014–0192, by any of the following methods:
Internet:
Email:
USPS Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand or Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3304, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2014–0192. Deliveries are accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Jim Downing, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2468, fax number: (202) 564–2070, email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of action denying petition for reconsideration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of its response to a petition for reconsideration of a rule published in the
Petitions for review must be filed by May 19, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0825, which includes the petition for reconsideration, EPA's response, and other related documents. All documents are listed on the
John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, at 312–886–6067,
This action pertains to a particular facility in Charlevoix, Michigan, and is not based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect. Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, any petitions for review of EPA's action denying the SMC petition for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on or before May 19, 2014.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice and request for public comments. Request for OMB review and extension of approval.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) This collection was developed as part of the Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery. This is the notice of our intent to submit this collection to OMB for the extension of approval. We are soliciting comments on the specific aspects for the proposed information collection.
A copy of the draft supporting statement is available at
Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through the
To request additional information, please contact Andy Chang,
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 the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections 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, but it does 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 results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections 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.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
All written comments will be available for public inspection Regulations.gov.
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.
Notice of an Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This notice replaces the notice of the partially open meeting of March 19, 2014 which has subsequently been cancelled.
Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Item No. 1 Ex-Im Bank Sub-Saharan Advisory Committee for 2014 (New Members)
The meeting will be open to public observation for Item No. 1 only.
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting should call Joyce Stone, Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571 (202) 565–3336 by close of business Tuesday, March 25, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 17, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
The data collected on this form includes the Date of Birth for Commercial Operator licensees however this information will be redacted from public view.
The FCC uses the information in FCC Form 605 to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to obtain a license. Without such information, the Commission cannot determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provide telecommunication services to the public, and therefore, to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Information provided on this form will also be used to update the database and to provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum as well as enforcement purposes.
As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–454), Chairman Thomas Wheeler appointed the following executive to the Performance Review Board (PRB): Diane Cornell.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the FDIC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on renewal of its information collection entitled
Comments must be submitted on or before May 19, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Leneta Gregorie, at the FDIC address above.
Proposal to renew without change the following currently approved collections of information:
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
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 April 10, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Funeral Industry Practice Rule (“Funeral Rule” or “Rule”). That clearance expires on September 30, 2014.
Comments must be filed by May 19, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Funeral Rule should be directed to Craig Tregillus, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission,
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR part 453 (OMB Control Number 3084–0025). The Funeral Rule ensures that consumers who are purchasing funeral goods and services have access to accurate itemized price information so they can purchase only the funeral goods and services they want or need. In particular, the Rule requires a funeral provider to: (1) Give consumers a copy they can keep of the funeral provider's General Price List (“GPL”) that itemizes the goods and services they offer; (2) show consumers their Casket Price List (“CPL”) and their Outer Burial Container Price List (“OBCPL”) at the outset of any discussion of those items or their prices, and in any event before showing consumers caskets or burial containers;
(3) provide price information from their price lists over the telephone; and (4) give consumers a Statement of Funeral Goods and Services Selected (“SFGSS”) after determining the funeral arrangements with the consumer (the “arrangements conference”). The Rule requires that funeral providers disclose this information to consumers and maintain records to facilitate enforcement of the Rule.
The estimated burden associated with the collection of information required by the Rule is 19,680 hours for recordkeeping, 102,021 hours for disclosure, and 39,360 hours for compliance training for a cumulative total of 161,061 hours. This estimate is based on the number of funeral providers (approximately 19,680),
1. Maintaining accurate price lists may require that funeral providers revise their price lists occasionally (most do so once a year, some less frequently) to reflect price changes. Staff conservatively estimates that this task may require a maximum average burden of two and one-half hours per provider
2. Staff retains its prior estimate that 13% of funeral providers prepare written documentation of funeral goods and services selected by consumers specifically due to the Rule's mandate. The original rulemaking record indicated that 87% of funeral providers provided written documentation of funeral arrangements, even absent the Rule's requirements.
3. The Funeral Rule also requires funeral providers to answer telephone inquiries about the provider's offerings or prices. Information received in 2002 from the NFDA indicates that only about 12% of funeral purchasers make telephone inquiries, with each call lasting an estimated ten minutes.
In sum, the burden due to the Rule's disclosure requirements totals 102,021 hours (49,200 + 2,558 + 50,263).
Clerical personnel, at an hourly rate of $13.00,
The two and one-half hours required of each provider, on average, to update price lists should consist of approximately one and one-half hours of managerial or professional time, at $38.42 per hour,
The incremental cost to the 13% of small funeral providers who would not otherwise supply written documentation of the goods and services selected by the consumer, as previously noted, is 2,558 hours. Assuming managerial or professional time for these tasks at approximately $38.42 per hour, the associated labor cost would be $98,278.
As previously noted, staff estimates that 50,263 hours of managerial or professional time is required annually to respond to telephone inquiries about prices.
Based on past consultations with funeral directors, FTC staff estimates that funeral homes will require no more than two hours of training per year of licensed and non-licensed funeral home staff to comply with the Funeral Rule,
(a) Funeral service manager ($38.42 per hour); (b) non-manager funeral director ($25.19); (c) embalmer ($21.03 per hour); and (d) a clerical receptionist or administrative staff member, at $13 per hour.
The total labor cost of the three disclosure requirements imposed by the Funeral Rule is $3,419,380 ($1,389,998 + $98,278 + $1,931,104). The total labor cost for recordkeeping is $255,840. The total labor cost for disclosure, recordkeeping, and training is $4,635,998 ($3,419,380 for disclosure + $255,840 for recordkeeping + $960,778 for training).
Compliance with the Rule, however, does entail some expense to funeral providers for printing and duplication of required disclosures. Assuming, as required by the Rule, that one copy of the general price list is provided to consumers for each funeral or cremation conducted, at a cost of 25¢ per copy,
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 19, 2014. Write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P084401” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 19, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule. That clearance expires on March 31, 2014.
Comments must be received by April 17, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Svetlana Gans, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H–286, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3708.
On December 10, 2013, the Commission sought comment on the Rule's information collection requirements.
Estimated Number of Respondents, Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:
(a) Recordkeeping—IDSMs, 2, 30 minutes/case for 11,514 annual consumer cases;
(b) Reporting—IDSMs, 2, 10 minutes/case for 11,514 annual consumer cases; &
(c) Disclosures—Warrantors, 15, annual 30 hours; IDSMs, 2, 5 minutes/case for 2,303 consumer cases.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 17, 2014. Write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Warranty Rules: Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P044403” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 17, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395–5167.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI and Advocate Health Care found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by directing or intimidating fellows and others to influence left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) scores of ≤ 35% and requesting attending physicians to reassess scores of LVEF to be reported as ≤ 35% for research subjects after being diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, thereby causing and being responsible for falsification of research records. These falsifications made subjects eligible for enrollment into the “Vest Prevention of Early Sudden Death Trial” (VEST) when they otherwise may not have been eligible.
The Respondent, Advocate Health Care, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) want to conclude this matter without further expenditure of time or other resources and have entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to resolve this matter. Respondent neither admits nor denies ORI's and Advocate Health Care's findings of research misconduct. This settlement does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent.
Dr. Patel has voluntarily agreed for a period of two (2) years, beginning on February 21, 2014:
(1) To have any U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)-supported research in which he is involved be supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of Respondent's research contribution as outlined below; Respondent agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed-upon supervision plan;
(2) That the requirements for Respondent's supervision plan are as follows:
• A committee of two to three qualified physicians at the institution's discretion, who are familiar with Respondent's field of research, but not including Respondent's supervisor or collaborators, will provide oversight and guidance; the committee will review primary data from Respondent's participation in PHS-supported research on a quarterly basis and submit a report to ORI at six (6) month intervals setting forth the committee's meeting dates, Respondent's compliance with appropriate research standards, and confirming the integrity of Respondent's research contribution; and
• The committee will conduct an advance review of any PHS grant applications (including supplements, resubmissions, etc.), manuscripts reporting PHS-funded research submitted for publication, and abstracts; the review will include a discussion with Respondent of the primary data represented in those documents and will include a certification to ORI that the data presented in the proposed application/publication are supported by the research record;
(3) That any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and
(4) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
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 whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Requirements for the Importation of Nonhuman Primates into the United States—Revision—(OMB No. 0920–0263, expiration date: 4/30/2016)—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is submitting this revision to obtain authority to collect electronic information from importers/filers on nonhuman primate and nonhuman primate products over which CDC has authority, notably those found in 42 CFR part 71. This request is consistent with requirements of the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act that states that all agencies that require documentation for clearing or licensing the importation and exportation of cargo participate in the International Trade Data System (ITDS), and is also consistent with CDC authorities under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) (42 U.S.C. 264).
This electronic data is specified by CDC using Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Sets and is collected by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from importers/filers when they submit the information needed through International Trade Data System ITDS and the Automated Commercial Environment (ITDS/ACE) to clear an import. CDC has developed a PGA message set for each regulated import specified in 42 CFR part 71, and each PGA Message Set includes only those data requirements necessary in order to determine whether or not a CDC-regulated import poses a risk to public health and that the importer has met CDC's regulatory requirements for entry. CDC included the PGA Message Sets for review because there is no set form or format for the electronic submission of import related data to CBP and CDC. CDC is permitted access to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) data pursuant to 6 CFR 29.8(b) and 49 CFR 1520.11(b), which permit federal employees with a need to know to have access to this data.
CDC is maintaining its authority to collect hard copies of required documentation, as currently authorized by the Office of Management and Budget, because the use of ITDS/ACE will not be required for imports entering the United States until a later date. CDC will accept both hard copy and electronic filing of import-related documentation until the use of ACE is required for cargo entering the United States.
Through this revision, CDC is requesting a net increase in the estimated number of burden hours in the amount of 798 hours. Of these additional hours, 608 hours pertain to requests for CDC Message Set data via ITDS/ACE, and 190 hours pertain to required statements/documentation of products being rendered non-infectious.
CDC is maintaining its authority to collect hard copies of required documentation, as currently authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), because the use of ITDS/ACE will not be required for imports entering the United States until a later date. CDC will accept both hard copy and electronic filing of import-related documentation until the use of ACE is required for cargo entering the United States.
Respondents to this data collection have not changed and remain new and registered importers of live nonhuman primates and importers of nonhuman primate products. The number of additional hours requested for this information collection total 798 hours. The total burden for this information collection request is 943 hours. There are no costs to respondents except for their time to complete the forms, and complete and submit data and documentation.
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services co-chaired an inter-agency process with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to create the first Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States. The Plan addresses the needs for the implementation of coordinated, effective, culturally appropriate and trauma informed care for victims of human trafficking. The purpose of this initiative is to develop a pilot training project that will strengthen the health systems' response to human trafficking in four key ways
1. Increase knowledge about human trafficking among health care providers;
2. Build the capacity of health care providers to deliver culturally appropriate and trauma-informed care to victims of human trafficking;
3. Increase the identification of victims of human trafficking; and
4. Increase services to survivors of human trafficking.
The evaluation will measure immediate outcomes, e.g., from pre-intervention to post-intervention, as well as intermediate outcomes at a 3 month post intervention.
The target audience for training and evaluation will be 200 health care providers from hospitals, clinics, and private health practices. The health care providers will be from federal, state/territorial, and local health departments, the Veterans' Administration, professional associations, and tribal institutions.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 256
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:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On November 25, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910–0330. The approval expires on February 28, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Preparing a Claim of Categorical Exclusion or an Environmental Assessment for Submission to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50–400B, Rockville, MD 20850,
On December 30, 2013, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Preparing a Claim of Categorical Exclusion or an Environmental Assessment for Submission to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910–0541. The approval expires on February 28, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE): Questions and Answers.” This draft guidance answers commonly asked questions about humanitarian use devices (HUDs) and HDE applications. This guidance document reflects changes to the HDE program as a result of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
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 June 16, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE): Questions and Answers” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002 or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM–40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301–847–8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Nicole Wolanski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1650, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6570; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.
This draft guidance answers commonly asked questions about HUDs and HDE applications authorized under section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)). Section 613 of FDASIA (Pub. L. 112–144), signed into law on July 9, 2012, amended section 520(m) of the FD&C Act. This draft guidance document reflects the changes in the HDE program as a result of FDASIA. Upon issuance as a final guidance document, this guidance will replace the existing HDE guidance entitled “Guidance for Humanitarian Device Exemption Holders, Institutional Review Boards, Clinical Investigators, and Food and Drug Administration Staff—Humanitarian Device Exemption Regulation: Questions and Answers,” issued on July 8, 2010, which was developed and issued prior to the enactment of FDASIA.
HUDs approved under an HDE cannot be sold for an amount that exceeds the costs of research and development, fabrication, and distribution of the device (i.e., for profit), except in certain circumstances. FDASIA expands the types of HDE-approved HUDs that are eligible to be sold for profit, subject to restrictions in section 520(m)(6) of the FD&C Act.
FDASIA also amends the definition of the annual distribution number (ADN). Under section 520(m)(6) of the FD&C Act, if FDA makes a determination that a HUD meets certain conditions, the HUD is permitted to be sold for profit after receiving HDE approval as long as the number of devices distributed in any
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 commonly asked questions about HUDs and HDE applications. 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 statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
To receive “Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE): Questions and Answers,” you may either send an email request to
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in sections 520(m) and 515A (21 U.S.C. 360e-1) of the FD&C Act and 613(b) of FDASIA have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0661; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0437; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A, B, and C have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0332; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 10.30 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0183.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs—General Considerations” (draft BA and BE guidance for NDAs). The draft guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and/or applicants planning to include bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence (BE) information for drug products in investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), and NDA supplements. This draft guidance revises those parts of the March 2003 guidance entitled “Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Orally Administered Drug Products—General Considerations” relating to BA and BE studies for INDs, NDAs, and NDA supplements.
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 written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 19, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Dakshina Chilukuri, Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, Rm. 3177, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5008, or
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs—General Considerations.” The draft guidance provides recommendations to sponsors and/or applicants planning to include BA and BE information for drug products in INDs, NDAs, and NDA supplements. The draft guidance is applicable to orally administered drug products and may also be applicable to non-orally administered drug products when reliance on systemic exposure measures is suitable to document BA and BE (e.g., transdermal delivery systems and certain rectal and nasal drug products). The guidance should be helpful for applicants conducting BA and BE studies during the IND period for an NDA and also for applicants conducting BE studies during the postapproval period for certain changes to drug products that are the subject of
Studies to measure BA and/or establish BE of a product are important elements in support of INDs, NDAs, and NDA supplements. BA means the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety is absorbed from a drug product and becomes available at the site of action (21 CFR 320.1(a)). BA data provide an estimate of the fraction of the drug absorbed, as well as provide information related to the pharmacokinetics of the drug. BA for orally administered drug products can be documented by a systemic exposure profile obtained by measuring concentrations of active ingredients and/or active moieties over time and, when appropriate, active metabolites over time in samples collected from the systemic circulation as compared to that of a suitable reference.
BE means the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study (21 CFR 320.1(e)). Studies to establish BE between two products are important for certain formulation or manufacturing changes occurring during the drug development and postapproval stages. In BE studies, the systemic exposure profile of a test drug product is compared to that of a reference drug product.
In the
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on conducting BA and BE studies for INDs and NDAs. 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 requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collection of information submitted under 21 CFR part 312 (investigational new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910–0014. The collection of information submitted under 21 CFR part 314 (new drug applications) has been approved under OMB control number 0910–0001.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of April 2014.
The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health will convene its seventy fifth meeting in the time and place specified below:
Tuesday morning at approximately 9:00 a.m., the Committee will break into Subcommittees and depart for site visits to health care and human services' providers in Iowa and Nebraska. One panel from the Health Subcommittee will visit Nemaha County Hospital in Auburn, Nebraska. Another panel from the Health Subcommittee will visit Myrtue Medical Center in Harlan, Iowa. The Human Services Subcommittee will visit the Northeast Nebraska Community Action Partnership, in Fremont, Nebraska. The day will conclude at the Sorrell Center for Health Science Education with a period
Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m., the Committee will meet to summarize key findings and develop a work plan for the next quarter and the following meeting.
Steve Hirsch, MSLS, Executive Secretary, National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 5A–05, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 443–7322, fax (301) 443–2803.
Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting should contact Kristen Lee at the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) via telephone at (301) 443–6884 or by email at klee1@hrsa.gov. The Committee meeting agenda will be posted on ORHP's Web site
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments Due: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by May 19, 2014.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Vivian Horovitch-Kelley, Office of Management Policy and Compliance, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892–9760 or call non-toll-free number 240–276–6850 or Email your request
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden hours are 8,750.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 03, 2014, 02:00 p.m. to March 03, 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 at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will start on April 1, 2014
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 02, 2014, 01:00 p.m. to April 02, 2014, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on April 7, 2014, starting at 02:00 p.m. and ending at 03:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
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.
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.
Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces the availability of four draft NTP Technical Reports (TRs) scheduled for peer review: bromodichloroacetic acid, CIMSTAR 3800, green tea extract, and indole-3-carbinol. The peer-review meeting is open to the public. Registration is requested for both public attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration are available at
Dr. Yun Xie, NTP Designated Federal Official, Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, DNTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD K2–03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: (919) 541–3436, Fax: (301) 451–5455, Email:
The preliminary agenda and draft TRs should be posted on the NTP Web site (
Public comment at this meeting is welcome, with time set aside for the presentation of oral comments on the draft TRs. In addition to in-person oral comments at the NIEHS, public comments can be presented by teleconference line. There will be 50 lines for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 22, 2014, although oral comments will be received only during the formal public comment periods indicated on the preliminary agenda. The access number for the teleconference line will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Each organization is allowed one time slot per draft TR. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each time slot, and if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the chair.
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to register online at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement to Paris Therapeutics, a company having a place of business in Santee, CA, to practice the inventions embodied in the following patent applications:
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before April 2, 2014 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application(s), inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement should be directed to: Whitney A. Hastings, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804; Telephone: (301) 451–7337; Facsimile: (301) 402–0220; Email:
This technology describes fully human monoclonal antibodies that have been affinity maturated against IGF–I and IGF–II and display extremely high affinities for IGF–I and IGF–II in the picoM range. Some of these antibodies potently inhibited signal transduction mediated by the IGF–1R interaction with IGF–I and IGF–II and blocked phosphorylation of IGF–IR and the insulin receptor. In addition, they inhibited migration in the MCF–7 breast cancer cell line at the picoM range. Therefore, these antibodies could be used to prevent binding of IGF–I and/or IGF–II to its concomitant receptor IGFIR, consequently, modulating diseases such as cancer.
The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement is being considered under the small business initiative launched on October 1, 2011 and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, that establishes that the grant of the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Start-Up Exclusive Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security 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: Documents Required Aboard Private Aircraft. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before April 17, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates 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 including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
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 (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing recovery permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before April 17, 2014.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Endangered Species Program Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone: 916–414–6464; fax: 916–414–6486). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.
Daniel Marquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; see
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (survey, capture, handle, mark, release, hold in captivity, and relocate) the Morro Bay kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit to reduce and remove to possession (collect) the
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (survey, capture, handle, and release) the Stephens' kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and remove brown-headed cowbird (
The applicant requests an amendment to a permit to take (survey and nest monitor) the California clapper rail (
The applicant requests an amendment to a permit to take (locate and monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Sonoma County DPS) (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, erect and use cameras to monitor nests, capture, handle, band, radio tag, hold for no more than 20 minutes and release, install and remove fence pens and radio tag (attach radio-transmitters to chicks) for the purposes of mark-recapture study, and transport sick or injured individuals and abandoned eggs) the California least tern (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey and collect voucher specimens) the island night lizard (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, band, and locate and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, mark, release, and collect voucher specimens) the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, collect, and collect vouchers) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, collect, and collect vouchers) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and use decoys and taped vocalizations) the California least tern (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey, capture, handle, mark, measure, and release) the salt marsh harvest mouse (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate, handle, measure, and release) the Morro shoulderband snail (
Applicant: Thomas P. Ryan, Monrovia, California.
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, erect nest exclosures, erect and use cameras to monitor nests, capture, handle, band, color band, float eggs, use decoys and acoustic playback, collect non-viable eggs, radio tag (attach radio-transmitters), hold for no more than 20 minutes and release, install and remove fence sampling pens, perform mark-recapture study, and transport sick or injured individuals and abandoned eggs) the California least tern (
We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39319) and determined on October 21, 2013, that it would conduct expedited reviews (78 FR 68473, November 14, 2013).
The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on March 11, 2014. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4457 (March 2014), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 19, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Steven W. Perry, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (phone: 202–307–0777).
This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 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., 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 20530.
On March 12, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Settlement Agreement with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the bankruptcy proceeding entitled
Under the Settlement Agreement, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and its affiliated debtors and reorganized debtors have agreed to allow the United States Environmental Protection Agency's claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601–75, for unreimbursed past and future response costs in connection with the Mercury Refining Superfund Site in Colonie and Guilderland, New York, in the amount of $1,644,445, and in connection with the Fair Lawn Well Field Superfund Site in the amount of $2,116,682. The Settlement Agreement also addresses the application and allocation of a portion of a federal income tax refund owed by the United States to Kodak as a setoff against a portion of these allowed amounts.
The Settlement Agreement contains a covenant not to sue Kodak from the United States under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9609 and 9607.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On March 12, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Settlement Agreement with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the bankruptcy proceeding entitled
Under this Settlement Agreement, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) has agreed to fund a trust in the total amount of $49,000,000 to allow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) to implement environmental response actions at the 1,200-acre Eastman Business Park (“EBP”) in Monroe County, New York, and the adjacent Genesee River, to address pre-existing contamination at these locations (“EBP Environmental Response Actions”). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Funding Agreement, DEC will fund, subject to appropriations, using funds from whatever source, the cost of EBP Environmental Response Actions above $49,000,000, up to $99,000,000, and DEC and Kodak will each pay 50% of the cost of EBP Environmental Response Actions above $99,000,000.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Kodak will also allow the United States Department of Interior's (“DOI”) and DEC's overlapping bankruptcy claims for natural resource damages in connection with the Genesee River in the amount of $7,163,000. The Settlement Agreement also addresses the application and allocation of a federal income tax refund owed by the United States to Kodak as a setoff to the allowed natural resource damages claim and certain United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) claims allowed under a separate agreement.
The Settlement Agreement contains covenants not to sue Kodak from the United States on behalf of EPA under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement, the Funding Agreement, and the Memorandum of Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $13.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Institute of Justice, JPO, DOJ.
Notice and request for comments.
In an effort to obtain comments from interested parties, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Scientific Working Group for Disaster Victim Identification will make available to the general public the following three draft documents: (1) “Data Management: Guidelines for the Medicolegal Authority”; (2) “Family Assistance Center: Guidelines for Medicolegal Authorities”; and (3) “Molecular Biology Considerations for Human Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents”. The opportunity to provide comments on any or all of these documents is open to coroner/medical examiner office representatives, law enforcement agencies, organizations, and all other stakeholders and interested parties. Those individuals wishing to obtain the draft documents under consideration, and provide comments regarding them, are directed to the following Web site:
Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2014.
Patricia Kashtan, by telephone at 202–353–1856 [
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Notice of meeting.
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention announces its next meeting.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The meeting will take place in the third floor main conference room at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th St. NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Visit the Web site for the Coordinating Council at
The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“Council”), established by statute in the Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, section 206(a) (42 U.S.C. 5616(a)), will meet to carry out its advisory functions. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and reports will be available on the Council's Web page,
Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership consists of the Attorney General (Chair), the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of Labor (DOL), the Secretary of Education (DOE), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Other federal agencies take part in Council activities, including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and the Substance and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS.
Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting.
The Council expects that the public statements submitted will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions from the public are also invited at the meeting.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Notice of Recurrences (CA–2a). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 19, 2014.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S–3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0701, fax (202) 693–1447, Email
The information provided is used by OWCP claims examiners to determine whether a claimant has sustained a recurrence of disability related to an accepted injury and, if so, the appropriate benefits payable. This information collection is currently approved for use through June 30, 2014.
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
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.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95–541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by April 17, 2014. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
ASPA, Import into USA: This permit would allow entry into ASPA 153 Eastern Dallmann Bay and ASPA 152 Western Bransfield Strait for the purpose of collecting a small number of icefish species via trawling and trapping for a study on freezing avoidance and evolutionary cold adaptation in Antarctic fishes. Some whole, frozen individuals as well as tissue samples would be imported back into the U.S.A. for physiological, biochemical, and molecular studies. Port of Entry is Port Hueneme, CA.
Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay; and Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 152, Western Bransfield Strait (Area around Low Island).
June 21, 2014 to October 21, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from March 5 to March 18, 2014. The last biweekly notice was published on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12241).
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06–44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0045 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–0045 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate repair criteria H* and does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change has no significant effect upon accident probabilities or consequences.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB), Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. The structural margins against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” (Reference 11) and NEI 97–06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines” (Reference 3) are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions. Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident.
The probability of a Steam Line Break, Locked Rotor, and Control Rod Ejection are not affected by the potential failure of a SG tube, as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for any of these events. In the supporting Westinghouse analyses, leakage is modeled as flow through a porous medium via the use of the Darcy equation. The leakage model is used to develop a relationship between allowable leakage and leakage at accident conditions that is based on differential pressure across the tubesheet and the viscosity of the fluid. A leak rate ratio was developed to relate the leakage at operating conditions to leakage at accident conditions. The fluid viscosity is based on fluid temperature and it has been shown that for the most limiting accident, the fluid temperature does not exceed the normal operating temperature. Therefore, the viscosity ratio is assumed to be 1.0 and the leak rate ratio is a function of the ratio of the accident differential pressure and the normal operating differential pressure.
The leakage factor of 1.75 for IP2 for a-postulated MSLB, has been calculated as shown in the supporting Westinghouse analysis. IP2 [Indian Point Unit 2] will apply a factor of 1.75 to the normal operating leakage associated with the tubesheet expansion region in the Condition Monitoring Assessment and Operational Assessment. Through application of the limited tubesheet inspection scope, the administrative leakage limit of 75 gpd [gallons per day] provides assurance that excessive leakage (i.e., greater than accident analysis assumptions) will not occur. No leakage factor will be applied to the Locked Rotor or Control Rod Ejection due to their short duration, since the calculated leak rate ratio is less than 1.0. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the consequences of these accidents.
For the Condition Monitoring Assessment, the component of leakage from the prior cycle from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 1.75 and added to the total leakage from any other source and compared to the allowable MSLB leakage limit. For the Operational Assessment, the difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and the accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet expansion region will be divided by 1.75 and compared to the observed operational leakage. As noted above, an administrative limit of 75 gpd has been established at IP2 to assure that the allowable accident induced leakage is not exceeded.
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97–06 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate repair criteria (H*). The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change defines the safety significant portion of the SG tubing that must be inspected and repaired. WCAP–17828–P identifies the inspection depth below which any type of degradation is shown to have no impact on the steam generator tube integrity performance criteria in NEI 97–06. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes but will limit inspection within the tubesheet to the portion of the tube from the top of the tubesheet to a distance H* below the top of the tubesheet.
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For circumferentially oriented cracking, the supporting Westinghouse analyses define a length of degradation-free expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude unacceptable primary to secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The MSLB leak rate factor for IP2 is 1.75. Multiplying the IP2 administrative leak rate limit of 75 gpd/SG by this factor shows that the primary-to-secondary leak rate during a postulated SLB is not exceeded.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.
Based on the above, Entergy concludes that the proposed amendment to the Indian Point 2 Technical Specifications presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of `no significant hazards consideration' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed extension of staff augmentation times has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator. The change affects the response to radiological emergencies under the Palisades Nuclear Plant SEP. The ability of the emergency response organization to respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been evaluated. Changes in the on-shift organization, such as the addition of staff and reassignment of key on-shift emergency response functions, provide assurance of emergency response without competing or conflicting duties. An analysis was also performed on the effect of the proposed change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the major functional areas of the SEP. The analysis concluded that extension of staff augmentation times would not significantly affect the ability to perform the required tasks.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects the required response times for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a radiological emergency. It has been evaluated and determined not to significantly affect the ability to perform that function. It has no effect on the plant design or on the normal operation of the plant and does not affect how the plant is physically operated under emergency conditions. The extension of staff augmentation times in the SEP does not affect the plant operating procedures which are performed by plant staff during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant design or method of operation. Section 50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E establish emergency planning standards and requirements that require adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key functional areas and critical tasks, and timely augmentation of the response capability. Since the SEP was originally developed, there have been improvements in the technology used to support the SEP functions and in the capabilities of onsite personnel. A functional analysis was performed on the effect of the proposed change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the functional areas of SEP. The analysis concluded that an increase in staff augmentation times would not significantly affect the ability to perform the required SEP tasks. Thus, the proposed change has been determined not to adversely affect the ability to meet the emergency planning standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification engineering change (EC) 55394,
In addition, implementing this strategy eliminates the need for the exterior sluice gates to be safety class and allows for continuous control of the intake cell level during a design basis flood event. The proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) changes for implementing modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining RW pump operation during a flooding event at FCS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification EC 55394 to provide control of the intake cell level by operation of the manual valves and the associated USAR changes do not alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of their safety function. The proposed amendment revises the USAR to include the necessary information to support the implementation of the modification allowing for maintaining RW pump operation during an abnormal operating procedure AOP–01 flooding event at FCS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed modification, which provides control of the intake cell level by operation of the manual valves, and the associated USAR changes do not alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. The proposed modification and associated USAR revisions ensure there is adequate protection to the RW pumps from an external flood hazard thus assuring adequate protection during a flood. Providing RW pump intake cell level control during flooding conditions allows for adjustment of flow and control of the intake cell level throughout the duration of the flood since the new valves are located inside the intake structure; thereby ensuring the RW pumps remain operable during a flood condition and will not adversely impact any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression for the inorganic zinc coating of the containment vessel is used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that the value for inorganic zinc thermal conductivity used in the containment integrity analyses is conservative, but is not used to change any of the parameters used in those analyses. There is no change to any accident initiator or condition of the containment that would affect the probability of any accident. The containment peak pressure analysis as reported in the UFSAR is not affected; therefore, the previously reported consequences are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to implement a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression and effects for the inorganic zinc coating of the containment vessel is used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that the value for inorganic zinc thermal conductivity used in the containment integrity analyses is conservative, but is not used to change any of the parameters used in the containment peak pressure analysis. The change in methodology does not change the condition of containment; therefore, no new accident initiator is created. The containment peak pressure analysis as currently evaluated is not affected, and the consequences previously reported are not changed. The new methodology does not change the containment; therefore, no new fault or sequence of events that could lead to containment failure or release of radioactive material is created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression and effects for the inorganic zinc coating of the containment vessel is used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that the value for inorganic zinc thermal conductivity used in the containment integrity analyses is conservative, but is not used to change any of the parameters used in the containment peak pressure analysis. The change in methodology does not change the condition of the containment and the integrity of the containment vessel is not affected. The containment peak pressure analysis as currently evaluated is not affected, and the consequences previously reported are not changed. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is changed by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no new design changes associated with the proposed amendment. All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request, including those standards in place following the NRC approval of using the HDPE piping, will continue to be applicable.
The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident initiators or precursors or adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained with respect to such initiators or precursors.
The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR.
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Since the proposed change is based on a calculation that demonstrates that a moderate energy crack in the ESW HDPE piping is unlikely, there are no impacts on the plant's existing hazard analyses.
The proposed change does not physically alter safety-related systems or affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their functions per the intended plant design.
As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended functions for mitigating the consequences of an accident and meeting applicable acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are no new design changes being proposed nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its specified safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of plant operation. No new transient precursors will be introduced as a result of this amendment.
The HDPE piping design change was previously approved by the NRC under Relief Request I3R–10. The proposed change in this amendment request does not create the possibility of a new type of accident, rather the proposed change seeks to eliminate the need to postulate an existing type of hazard event (moderate energy piping leakage crack) for the subject HDPE piping which has been shown to experience such low stresses that such a crack, and the potential flooding for that hazard event, need not be postulated.
The change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an actuation signal.
The proposed change does not, therefore, create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with reactor operation or the reactor coolant system. The design factor (DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC–05553 dated October 9, 2008 has not changed. This DF was approved by the NRC in Relief Request 13R–10 (Reference 6.2 to this Evaluation). There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (FΔH), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power density, or any other limit and associated margin of safety. Required shutdown margins in the COLR [core operating limits report] will not be changed. The proposed change does not eliminate any surveillances or alter the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications.
As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety as defined in any regulatory requirement or guidance document.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design function of structures, systems and components (SSCs) are not impacted by the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part 50] Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, and Calculation XX–E–013. The proposed changes to the approved fire protection program are based on the RCS [reactor coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response (Evaluation SA–08–006) for a postulated control room fire performed for changes to the alternative shutdown methodology outlined in letter SLNRC 84–0109, “Fire Protection Review.” Drawing E–1F9915, “Design Basis Document for OFN RP–017, Control Room Evacuation,” Revision 5, Evaluation SA–08–006, “RETRAN–3D Post-Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence Evaluation for a Postulated Control Room Fire,” Revision 3, and Calculation WCNOC–CP–003, “VIPRE–01 MDNBR Analyses of Control Room Fire Scenarios,” Revision 0 demonstrate the adequacy of the revised alternative shutdown procedure, OFN RF–017. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of performing the assumed function.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not alter the requirement or function for systems required during accident conditions. The design function of structures, systems and components are not impacted by the proposed change. Evaluation SA–08–006 and Calculation WCNOC–CP–003 determined natural circulation is maintained and adequate core cooling is maintained. The fission product boundary integrity is not affected and safe shutdown capability is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. The revised alternative shutdown methodology provides the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire. Evaluation SA–08–006 and Calculation WCNOC–CP–003 determined natural circulation is maintained and adequate core cooling is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing Surveillance Requirements to operate the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10 hour period with applicable heaters operating every 31 days, with requirements to operate these systems for 15 continuous minutes with applicable heaters operating every 31 days.
These systems are not accident initiators (i.e., their malfunction cannot initiate an accident or transient) and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and will continue to assure that these systems perform their design function which may include mitigating accidents. Therefore, the change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system components are capable of performing their intended safety functions. The change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design basis for the ventilation system heaters in the EES and in the pressurization trains of the CREVS includes the capability to heat the incoming air, reducing the relative humidity (and thereby increasing adsorber efficiency). The heater testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of heating the air and will thus perform their design function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The supplemental letters dated January 4, 2013, April 17, 2013, and October 30, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2014.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November 29, and December 16, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
The supplements dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and January 22, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2014.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2014.
The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations from the TS changes proposed in TSTF–510, Revision 2. The TSs for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2 utilize different numbering and titles than the Standard Technical Specifications on which TSTF–510, Revision 2, is based, since the steam generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are of different models. These differences are administrative in nature and do not affect the applicability of TSTF–510, Revision 2, to the TSs for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2.
The February 19, 2014, supplement did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for ITAAC 3.3.00.09, for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One
Denise McGovern, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–0681, email:
On January 17, 2014, South Carolina Electric and Gas, Inc. (the licensee) submitted an ITAAC closure notification (ICN) under § 52.99(c)(1) of Title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2, ITAAC 3.3.00.09. This notice fulfills the staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF), dated January 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14028A247). The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. The ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed, and the NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things, (1) the ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) the ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria are met; and (3) any inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with the ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of this ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If new information disputes the NRC staff's determination, this ITAAC will be reopened as necessary. The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for this ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of this ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by Northern States Power Company (NSPM) for amendment of Materials License No. SNM–2506 which authorizes NSPM to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials. The amendment sought to lower the allowed thermal conductance values for storage basket components utilized at the Prairie Island (PI) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0207 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287–9225; email:
By application dated July 17, 2013, as supplemented December 5, 2013, NSPM submitted to the NRC, in accordance with Part 72 of Title 10 of the
The NRC issued a letter dated August 9, 2013, notifying NSPM that the application was acceptable for review. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.16, a Notice of Docketing was published in the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) to document its review and evaluation of the amendment request. In addition, the NRC evaluated an assertion by PI that the amendment request satisfied the categorical exclusion criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11). Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), a categorical exclusion is allowed for amendments to materials licenses which involve changes to process operations or equipment provided that (i) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (ii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, (iii) there is no significant construction impact, and (iv) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. As explained in the SER, the NRC determined that the license amendment satisfied the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) categorical exclusion criteria. Consequently, an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact are not required.
Upon completing its review, the staff determined the request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's rules and regulations. As required by the Act and the NRC's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, the staff made the appropriate findings which are contained in the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A361). The NRC approved and issued Amendment No. 8 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM–2506, held by NSPM for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel and associated radioactive materials at the PI ISFSI. Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.46(d), the NRC is providing notice of the action taken. Amendment No. 8 was effective as of the date of issuance, March 10, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Arizona Public Service Company (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated March 8, 2012, for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74. The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specifications (TS) to eliminate the use of the term CORE ALTERATIONS throughout the TS.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0053 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Jennivine Rankin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1530, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Arizona Public Service Company (the licensee) to withdraw its March 8, 2012, application (ADAMS Accession No. ML12076A045), for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74, for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specifications (TS) to eliminate the use of the term CORE ALTERATIONS throughout the TS. The proposed amendment incorporated changes reflected in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 471–A, Revision 1, “Eliminate use of term CORE ALTERATIONS in ACTIONS and Notes.”
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has received a request for an alternate decommissioning schedule from the Department of the Navy (Navy) for its Space and Naval Warfare Centers Pacific (SPAWARS) site, located in San Diego, California, permitted under the Navy's Master Materials License (MML) No. 45–23645–01NA. Approval of the request would extend the time period for the Navy to submit a decommissioning plan and initiate decommissioning activities at SPAWARS.
Comments must be filed by May 19, 2014. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by May 19, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06–44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Orysia Masnyk Bailey, Health Physicist, Decommissioning and Technical Support Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2100 Renaissance Boulevard, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19468; telephone: 864–427–1032; fax number: 610–680–3597; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0047 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–0047 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC received, by letter dated August 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13249A300), a license amendment application from the Navy for its SPAWARS site located in San Diego, California, requesting to extend the time for submitting a decommissioning plan. SPAWARS possesses a Type A broad scope permit issued under the Navy's MML No. 45–23645–01NA. Approval of the request would extend the time period for the Navy to submit a decommissioning plan and initiate decommissioning activities at SPAWARS.
An NRC administrative completeness review, documented in a letter to the Navy dated January 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14028A515), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review. If the NRC approves the request, the approval will be documented in an amendment to the Navy's MML No. 45–23645–01NA. However, before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding may file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene with respect to issuance of the license amendment request. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth, with particularity, the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Notice of Request for Information.
This Request for Information (RFI) solicits input from the public regarding interagency research awards via competitive grants, contracts, or other vehicles provided by a Federal agency to a researcher at a Federal laboratory that is managed, owned, or operated by another Federal agency. Applicable research awards include extramural research awards awarded to intramural researchers in Federal laboratories. Federal laboratories include Government-Owned, Government-Operated laboratories (GOGOs) and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). Research awards pay for research projects and supporting resources, including the salaries of the principal investigators. The public input provided in response to this Notice will inform the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as it works with Federal agencies and other stakeholders to develop best practices for agencies.
Responses must be received by 11:59 p.m. on April 14, 2014, to be considered.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
•
•
•
Response to this RFI is voluntary. Respondents need not reply to all questions listed, but should indicate in their responses the number of the question to which they are responding. Responses to this RFI, including the names of the authors and their institutional affiliations, if provided, may be posted online. OSTP therefore requests that no business-proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally-identifiable information be submitted in response to this RFI. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the response.
Scientists and Engineers (S&Es) who do research and development on behalf of the U.S. Government can compete for research funding through a number of mechanisms, including an interagency agreement, memorandum of understanding, grant, contract, or other transaction agreement. OSTP and STPI have observed that there exist a number of barriers with the potential to limit or prohibit the use of these and other mechanisms on an interagency basis, such as legislation, regulation, interagency agreement, agency policy, program policy, or practices. Policies and practices that can hinder interagency research awards include outright prohibitions, limitations on funding, and added administrative burdens. In addition, agencies vary with respect to the permeability of interagency research awards and this inconsistency leads to inefficiencies and occasionally redundancies. For example, some agencies allow researchers from other Federal agencies to compete for extramural funding, and provide funding to such extramural Federal laboratory employees whose proposals successfully compete for those awards. However, other agencies limit the funding provided to S&Es working in Federal laboratories under
This RFI offers the opportunity for the public to identify challenges and opportunities for improving Federal interagency research funding awards to support the best and brightest researchers. For the purposes of this RFI, interagency research awards describe one Federal agency funding the research efforts of a scientist or engineer employed by a Federal laboratory managed, owned, or operated by another Federal agency using competitive processes. To ensure each agency is funding the highest quality research and engineering projects, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is considering the potential challenges and opportunities associated with allowing all intramural S&Es, both Federal and contractually employed by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) to compete for funding from other agencies, in addition to their own.
OSTP seeks input from all stakeholders who have suggestions for best practices to minimize limitations and administrative burdens associated with interagency research awards. Through this RFI, OSTP is interested in the views of S&Es at Federal laboratories—Government Owned, Government Operated and FFRDCs—who have experienced difficulty when attempting to secure competitive research funding from an agency other than their own, as well as from others who have experience or ideas relating to the following questions:
1. As a Federal laboratory researcher, what difficulties have you experienced when attempting to secure competitive research awards from another agency?
a. If known, please describe the nature of the difficulty. For example, the difficulty may have been an outright prohibition, a limitation on funding, an added administrative burden, or some other burden.
b. Please describe how your agency or the other agency contributed to the difficulty, if applicable.
c. If you know the source of the difficulty (legislation, regulation, interagency agreement, agency policy, program policy, practices, other), please provide details.
d. Please describe how you were able to secure research funding from the other agency despite the difficulties. If you were unable to secure research funding, please describe why not.
2. How has difficulty to secure research funding from other agencies impacted your research?
3. Does your department or agency have a set of best practices related to competitive interagency research awards? If so, please identify the department or agency and share those best practices if possible.
4. Do you have suggested guidance for agencies to improve consistent access to research funding for all Federal laboratory researchers, irrespective of departmental or agency boundaries?
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, March 20, 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 Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled “BX Options Market—Fees and Rebates.” Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Routing Fees. 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 purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Chapter XV, Section
Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.95 per contract Routing Fee to any options exchange. The Customer
With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (“NOS”),
The Exchange is proposing to assess market participants routing Customer orders to PHLX and NOM a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. Today the Exchange assesses a $0.05 per contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed with respect to Customer orders routed to PHLX and NOM. The Exchange would increase the Fixed Fee for Customer orders routed to PHLX and NOM from $0.05 to $0.10 per contract to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing these orders.
Similarly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the Customer Routing Fee assessed when routing to all other options exchanges, if the away market pays a rebate, from a $0.00 to a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee, in order to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing these orders. The Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee assessed by the away market, rather the Exchange only assesses the Fixed Fee, because the Exchange would continue to retain the rebate to offset the cost to route orders to these away markets. Today, the Exchange incurs certain costs when routing to away markets that pay rebates. The Exchange desires to recoup additional costs at this time.
BX believes that its proposal to amend its fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
BX believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to PHLX and NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to PHLX and NOM. Today, the Exchange assesses orders routed to PHLX and NOM a lower Fixed Fee for routing Customer orders as compared to the Fixed Fee assessed to other options exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Fixed Fee to recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection with routing these orders on behalf of its members.
The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to route Customer orders to PHLX and NOM, as compared to other options exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage certain infrastructure to offer those markets lower fees as explained further below. Similarly, the Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets, other than PHLX and NOM, in the instance the away market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing orders to these away markets. The Fixed Fee for Customer orders is an approximation of the costs the Exchange will be charged for routing orders to away markets. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Customer orders routed to markets which pay a rebate would allow it to recoup and cover a portion of the costs of providing optional routing services for Customer orders because it better approximates the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing such orders. While each destination market's transaction charge varies and there is a cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets, including OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical costs associated with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets, ORFs and technical costs associated with routing options, the Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the costs it incurs to route Customer orders to away markets.
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to PHLX and NOM from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee to all orders routed to PHLX and NOM in addition to the transaction fee assessed by that market. The Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX exchanges because the Exchange is passing along the saving [sic] realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are routed to PHLX or NOM and is providing those saving to all market participants. Furthermore, it is important to note that when orders are routed to an away market they are
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets, other than PHLX and NOM, in the instance the away market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess a lower Routing Fee because the Exchange retains the rebate that is paid by that market. These proposals would apply uniformly to all market participants when routing to an away market that pays a rebate, other than PHLX and NOM. Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for routing or “DNR” to avoid Routing Fees.
BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange is applying the same Routing Fees to all market participants in the same manner dependent on the routing venue, with the exception of Customers. The Exchange will continue to assess separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the lowest fees as compared to non-Customers when routing orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to non-customer orders.
The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to recoup its costs when routing Customer orders to PHLX or NOM as well as away markets that pay a rebate when such orders are designated as available for routing by the market participant. The Exchange continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when Customer orders are routed to PHLX or NOM and is providing those savings to all market participants. Today, other options exchanges also assess fixed routing fees to recoup costs incurred by the exchange to route orders to away markets.
Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for routing or “DNR” to avoid Routing Fees.
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Increase the fee for orders yielding Flag D, which route or re-route to the NYSE; (ii) decrease the fee for orders yielding Flag U, which route to LavaFlow; and (iii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag RW, which route to the CBSX and add liquidity.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag D, which route or re-route orders to the NYSE. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for orders that yield Flag D to $0.0026 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0030 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag U, which route to LavaFlow. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease the fee for orders that yield Flag U to $0.0028 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0018 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RW, which routes to the CBSX and adds liquidity. The Exchange does not currently charge a fee for orders in securities priced below $1.00 that yield Flag RW. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for orders that yield Flag RW to $0.0030 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of the trade's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00. The proposed change represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders that add liquidity to CBSX when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to CBSX's March 2014 fee change where the CBSX increased its fee from $0.0018 per share to $0.0030 per share for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on March 5, 2014.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for orders yielding Flag D represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to the NYSE's March 2014 fee change, the NYSE charged DE Route a fee of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to the NYSE, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0026 per share. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to the NYSE through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag D is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on the NYSE, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the fees for orders yielding Flag U represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to LavaFlow's March 2014 fee change, LavaFlow charged DE Route a fee of $0.0030 per share to remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to LavaFlow, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0028 per share. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to LavaFlow through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag U is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on LavaFlow, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for orders yielding Flag RW represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to CBSX's March 2014 fee change, CBSX charged DE Route a fee of $0.0018 per share to remove liquidity from CBSX in securities priced at or above $1.00 and no fee for securities priced below $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to and adds liquidity on the CBSX, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0030 per share or 0.30% of the trade's value, as described above. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to CBSX through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Flag RW are equitable and reasonable because they account for the pricing changes on CBSX, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor EDGX's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through the amended fees for orders that yield Flags D, U, and RW would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to the NYSE, LavaFlow, and CBSX respectively for the same price that they would be charged if they entered orders on those trading centers directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–EDGX–2014–04. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Increase the fee for orders yielding Flag D, which route or re-route to the NYSE; (ii) decrease the fee for orders yielding Flag U, which route to LavaFlow; and (iii) increase the fee for orders yielding Flag RW, which route to the CBSX and add liquidity.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag D, which route or re-route orders to the NYSE. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for orders that yield Flag D to $0.0026 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00.
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0030 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag U, which route to LavaFlow. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to decrease the
In securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0018 per share for Members' orders that yield Flag RW, which routes to the CBSX and adds liquidity. The Exchange does not currently charge a fee for orders in securities priced below $1.00 that yield Flag RW. The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the fee for orders that yield Flag RW to $0.0030 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.30% of the trade's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00. The proposed change represents a pass through of the rate that DE Route, the Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing orders that add liquidity to CBSX when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced fee. The proposed change is in response to CBSX's March 2014 fee change where the CBSX increased its fee from $0.0018 per share to $0.0030 per share for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 and instituted a charge of 0.30% of the trade's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on March 5, 2014.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for orders yielding Flag D represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to the NYSE's March 2014 fee change, the NYSE charged DE Route a fee of $0.0025 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to the NYSE, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0026 per share. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to the NYSE through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag D is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on the NYSE, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to decrease the fees for orders yielding Flag U represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to LavaFlow's March 2014 fee change, LavaFlow charged DE Route a fee of $0.0030 per share to remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to LavaFlow, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0028 per share. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to LavaFlow through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Flag U is equitable and reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on LavaFlow, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fees for orders yielding Flag RW represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. Prior to CBSX's March 2014 fee change, CBSX charged DE Route a fee of $0.0018 per share to remove liquidity from CBSX in securities priced at or above $1.00 and no fee for securities priced below $1.00, which DE Route passed through to the Exchange and the Exchange charged its Members. When DE Route routes to and adds liquidity on the CBSX, it will now be charged a standard rate of $0.0030 per share or 0.30% of the trade's value, as described above. The Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it routes to CBSX through DE Route. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Flag RW are equitable and reasonable because they account for the pricing changes on CBSX, which enables the Exchange to charge its Members the applicable pass-through rate. Lastly, the Exchange notes that routing through DE Route is voluntary and believes that the proposed change is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor EDGA's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will
In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through the amended fees for orders that yield Flags D, U, and RW would increase intermarket competition because it offers customers an alternative means to route to the NYSE, LavaFlow, and CBSX respectively for the same price that they would be charged if they entered orders on those trading centers directly. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to extend the Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) and Solicitation rebate to solicited orders executed in the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”) and Facilitation Mechanism. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to extend the QCC and Solicitation rebate to solicited orders executed in the PIM and in the Facilitation Mechanism. The fee changes discussed apply to both Standard Options and Mini Options traded on the Exchange. The Exchange's Schedule of Fees has separate tables for fees applicable to Standard Options and Mini Options. The Exchange notes that while the discussion below relates to fees for Standard Options, the fees for Mini Options, which are not discussed
The Exchange currently provides tiered rebates, in all symbols, for each originating side in QCC orders and orders executed in the Solicited Order Mechanism, based on a Member's volume in these crossing mechanisms during a month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it has determined to charge fees and provide rebates in Mini Options at a rate that is 1/10th the rate of fees and rebates the Exchange provides for trading in Standard Options. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees and rebates to provide market participants an incentive to trade Mini Options on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable and equitable in light of the fact that Mini Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value, specifically 1/10th that of a standard option contract, and, as such, is providing fees for Mini Options that are 1/10th of those applicable to Standard Options.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 2 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 amending Customer
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 Customer, Professional and Market Maker Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in order to continue to incentivize Participants to select NOM as a venue when directing order flow. The Exchange also proposes to increase the NOM Market Maker Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in permit the Exchange to continue to offer rebate incentives to attract liquidity to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amending Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, and Tier 5 Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options by modifying certain percentage metrics; amending
The Exchange currently pays Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options based on an eight tier rebate structure, which is found in Chapter XV Section 2(1), as follows:
The Exchange is proposing to make amendments to Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 1 through 5 as noted below.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 1 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by modifying the percentage of volume from 0.20% to 0.10% of the total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month (generally known in this proposal as the “percentage eligibility metric”). The Exchange proposes to also reduce from $0.25 to $0.20 per contract the Tier 1 Customer and Professional Rebates to Add Liquidity. This amendment simultaneously modifies the percentage eligibility metric and the rebate for Tier 1. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a Tier 1 $0.20 per contract rebate to Participants that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of up to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 2 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by modifying the percentage of volume from above 0.20% to 0.30% to above 0.10% to 0.20% of the total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also reduce from $0.42 to $0.25 per contract the Customer and Professional Tier 2 Rebates to Add Liquidity. This amendment simultaneously modifies the percentage eligibility metric and the rebate for Tier 2. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a Tier 2 $0.25 per contract rebate to Participants that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.10% to 20% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 3 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by modifying the percentage of volume from above 0.30% to 0.40% to above 0.20% to 0.30% of the total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also reduce from $0.43 to $0.42 per contract the Customer and Professional Tier 3 Rebates to Add Liquidity. This amendment simultaneously modifies the percentage eligibility metric and the rebate for Tier 3. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a Tier 3 $0.42 per contract rebate to Participants that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.20% to 30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 4 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by changing the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.40% to above 0.30% to 0.40% of the total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also reduce from $0.45 to $0.43 per contract the Customer and Professional Tier 4 Rebates to Add Liquidity. This amendment simultaneously modifies the percentage eligibility metric and the rebate for Tier 4. The Exchange believes that deleting the words “or more” brings greater clarity to the rule text as proposed. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a Tier 4 rebate of $0.43 per contract to Participants that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options from above 0.40% to above 0.30% to 0.40% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 5 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity to add an alternative to the current contracts per day metric. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the alternative metric of above 0.40% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month to the requirements to qualify for Tier 5. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a Tier 5 $0.45 per contract rebate where Participants add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.40% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, or Participant adds liquidity per the current Tier 5 metric where Participant adds (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
The Exchange would continue to incentivize Participants, with Customer and Professional Tiers 1 through 5 rebates, as amended, to direct liquidity to the Exchange by paying the specified rebates to those Participants that add Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options according to metrics keyed to industry customer equity and ETF option average ADV contracts per day in a month.
There are also four explanatory
The Exchange is proposing to amend
In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend
The Exchange also proposes to adopt
The Exchange currently pays NOM Market Maker Rebates to Add Liquidity based on a five tier rebate structure, which is found in Chapter XV Section 2(1), as follows:
For purposes of qualifying for a NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity tier, the Exchange today calculates the number of contracts per day in a month. Similarly to the metric used to calculate Customer and/or Professional Rebates to add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options, the Exchange proposes to make certain amendments to the NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 1 through 5, and add a new Tier 6, to establish a metric of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 29,999 contracts per day in a month to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also
The Exchange proposes to modify the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 30,000 to 59,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.10% to 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also reduce the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract. This amendment simultaneously establishes a percentage eligibility metric and modifies the Tier 2 rebate. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a $0.25 per contract Tier 2 rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.10% to 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric from 60,000 to 69,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% to 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange proposes to also reduce the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity from $0.32 to $0.30 per contract. This amendment simultaneously establishes a percentage eligibility metric and modifies the Tier 3 rebate. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a $0.30 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.30% to 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month. The Exchange would continue to pay a Tier 4 rebate of $0.32 or $.38 per contract in symbols BAC, GLD, IWM, QQQ and VXX or $0.38 per contract in SPY; the rebate would be paid to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Tier 5 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 40,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and qualify for the Tier 7 or 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate. The Exchange would continue to pay a Tier 5 rebate of $.40 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and qualify for the Tier 7 or 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt a new Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by offering Participants that add the highest level of NOM Market Maker liquidity a rebate. Proposed Tier 6 would have a format similar to other NOM Market Maker liquidity rebate tiers. With this amendment, the Exchange would pay a $0.42 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and qualifies for the Tier 7 or Tier 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
The Exchange would continue to incentivize Participants, with NOM Market Maker rebate Tiers 1 through 6 as amended, to provide liquidity by paying specified rebates to those Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options according to percentage metrics keyed to industry customer equity and ETF option average ADV contracts per day in a month. The proposed percentage metrics are dynamic in that they reference total industry options contracts per day rather than a static number of contracts, and thereby make the NOM Market Maker rebate structure similar for Customer and/or Professional Penny Pilot Options as well as for NOM Market Makers for similar products (e.g. Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options).
NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange's goal is to modify or institute percentage eligibility thresholds and adjust Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity in order to continue to encourage market participants to direct a greater amount of Customer, Professional and NOM Market Maker liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange's proposal does not eliminate rebates or the ability for market participants to earn rebates, but rather is modifying and explaining the methodology to earn rebates as noted herein.
The Exchange proposes to amend Tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 regarding Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity by modifying the applicable percentage metric and amending certain rebates. This proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons noted below.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.25 to $0.20 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from 0.20% to 0.10% is reasonable because while Participants may get a moderately smaller rebate, they would qualify for the rebate at a significantly lower percentage metric. Thus, the Exchange is still paying a rebate to incentivize Participants to transact a qualifying number of Customer and/or Professional contracts on the Exchange and receive a rebate. While certain Participants that currently qualify for certain rebate tiers may receive lower rebates with this proposal, the Exchange believes that the rebates will continue to incentivize NOM Participants to direct Customer
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 1 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.25 to $0.20 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from 0.20% to 0.10% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 1 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 2 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.42 to $0.25 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.20% to 0.30% to above 0.10% to 0.20% is reasonable because, while the rebate is being reduced, the Exchange is still paying a rebate incentive to Participants to transact qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the amendment is reasonable because while there is a rebate reduction, the Exchange also proposes to significantly reduce the eligibility metric to achieve the rebate, and with corresponding drops in the metrics in this tier and other tiers, Participants may qualify for other rebates when directing liquidity to the Exchange. While the change in the Tier 2 rebate appears to be a steep reduction, the change was made to realign the rebate tier structure (e.g. the combination of Tiers 4 and 5 into a single Tier and the introduction of the amended Tier 1 [sic]). It also important to note that no NOM Participant earned the Tier 2 $0.42 rebate so far in 2014.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 2 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.42 to $0.25 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.20% to 0.30% to above 0.10% to 0.20% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 2 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 3 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.43 to $0.42 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.30% to 0.40% to above 0.20% to 0.30% is reasonable because, while the rebate is being reduced, the Exchange is still paying a rebate incentive to Participants to transact qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on the Exchange. Participants may get a moderately smaller rebate, but they would qualify for the rebate at a significantly lower percentage metric. Thus, the Exchange is still paying a rebate to incentivize Participants to transact a qualifying number of Customer and/or Professional contracts on the Exchange and receive a significant rebate. It also important to note that no NOM Participant earned the $0.43 rebate in 2014.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 3 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.43 to $0.42 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.30% to 0.40% to above 0.20% to 0.30% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 3 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 4 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.45 to $0.43 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.40% to above 0.30% to 0.40% is reasonable because, while the rebate is being reduced, the Exchange is still paying a rebate incentive to Participants to transact qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on the Exchange. Participants may get a moderately smaller rebate, but they would qualify for the rebate at a significantly lower percentage metric. Thus, the Exchange is still paying a rebate to incentivize Participants to transact a qualifying number of Customer and/or Professional contracts on the Exchange and receive a significant rebate. The criteria from Tier 4 today was merged into Tier 5 and current Tier 4 was amended as proposed above. It also important to note no NOM Participants earned rebate pursuant to the Tier 4 in place for February.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 4 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity rebates from $0.45 to $0.43 per contract and also reduce the percentage eligibility metric from above 0.40% to above 0.30% to 0.40% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 4 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange believes its proposal to amend Chapter XV, Section 2 to delete deleting the words “or more” in Tier 4 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it adds greater clarity to the rule text and this change would be applied uniformly in calculating the Tier 4 rebate. Also, the Exchange believes that this amendment is non-substantive and merely clarifies the rule text.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt an alternative percentage eligibility metric to the Tier 5 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Tier 5 Rebate to Add Liquidity of above 0.40% of total is reasonable because the additional new metric will provide another method for Participants to qualify for the Customer and Profesional Tier 5 rebate and will continue to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on the Exchange. Additionally, Participants that receive a Tier 5 rebate of $0.45 per contract will continue to earn the rebate but will have an additional means to qualify for this rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt an alternative percentage eligibility metric to the Tier 5 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Tier 5 Rebate to Add Liquidity of above 0.40% of total is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 5 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to amend
The Exchange's proposal to amend
The Exchange's proposal to adopt
The Exchange's proposal to adopt
The Exchange's proposal to add a reference to
The Exchange's proposal to add a reference to
The Exchange's proposal to amend NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and add new Tier 6, in Penny Pilot Options and establish the applicable percentage metric is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons noted below.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 29,999 contracts per day in a month to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and to reduce the Tier 1 rebate from $0.32 to $0.30 [sic] per contract is reasonable because the decreased rebate, in light of establishment of the new percentage eligibility metric, would be the same for adding NOM Market Maker liquidity as for adding Customer and/or Professional Liquidity. This provides pricing/rebate consistency within the tiers and is continuing to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on NOM.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 29,999 contracts per day in a month to 0.10% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and to reduce the Tier 1 rebate from $0.32 to $0.30 [sic] `per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 1 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 30,000 to 59,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.10% to 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and to reduce the Tier 2 rebate from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract is reasonable because the decreased rebate, in light of establishment of the new percentage eligibility metric that would be the same for adding NOM Market Maker liquidity as for adding Customer and/or Professional Liquidity will provide pricing consistency and continue to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on NOM.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 30,000 to 59,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.10% to 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and to reduce the Tier 2 rebate from $0.30 to $0.25 per contract the Rebate to Add Liquidity, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 2 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of from 60,000 to 69,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% to 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and to reduce the Tier 3 rebate from reduce from $0.32 to $0.30 per contract is reasonable because the decreased rebate, in light of establishment of the new percentage eligibility metric, would be the same for adding NOM Market Maker liquidity as for adding Customer and/or Professional Liquidity will provide pricing consistency and continue to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on NOM.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 3 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of from 60,000 to 69,999 contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% to 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of from 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and continue to pay a Rebate to Add Liquidity is reasonable because the amendment will provide pricing consistency and continue to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on NOM.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of from 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.60% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and continue to pay a $0.32 or $0.38 per contract Rebate to Add Liquidity as currently provided, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 4 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 5 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 40,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and continue to pay a $0.40 per contract Rebate to Addis reasonable because the amendment will provide pricing consistency and continue to incentivize Participants to transact an even greater number of qualifying Customer and/or Professional volume on NOM.
The Exchange's proposal to modify the Tier 5 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity by amending the metric of 40,000 or more contracts per day in a month to above 0.30% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month and continue to pay a $0.40 Rebate to Add is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eligible Participants that qualify for the Tier 5 NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity will be uniformly paid the rebate.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity for Participants that add the highest level of NOM Market Maker liquidity that would pay a $0.42 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and in addition qualify for the Tier 7 or Tier 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 6 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity for Participants that add the highest level of NOM Market Maker liquidity that would pay a $0.42 per contract rebate to Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, and in addition qualify for the Tier 7 or Tier 8 Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
The Exchange would continue to incentivize Participants, with Tiers 1 through 6 NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Rebates to Add Liquidity, as amended, to provide liquidity by paying specified rebates to those Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options according to percentage metrics keyed to industry customer equity and ETF option average ADV contracts per day in a month. The proposed percentage metrics are dynamic in nature in that they reference total industry options contracts per day rather than a static number of contracts per day, and thereby make the Rebate structure similar for Customers and/or Professionals as well as for NOM Market Makers for similar products (e.g. Penny Pilot Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options).
In addition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to use percentage metrics keyed to industry customer equity and ETF option average ADV contracts per day in a month because that is a benchmark that Participants are comfortable with in respect to Customer and Professional liquidity. Moreover, while the Exchange evaluated the continued use of industry market maker volume, the Exchange believes that industry customer volume is a fair metric because it does not have the periodic spikes that may occur due to floor trading. Because NOM is an electronic market place with no trading floor, the Exchange believes that an industry volume metric is fair and reasonable.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that lowering percentage eligibility thresholds in Tiers 1 through 4 and adding a percentage eligibility metric in Tier 5 for Customer and Professional rebates, and amending Tiers 1 through 5 and adding Tier 6 to add percentage eligibility thresholds, will incentivize market participants to send additional order Customer and/or Professional flow to the Exchange. The attraction of additional order flow to the Exchange and should in turn promote competition. The Exchange's addition of percentage eligibility thresholds to the Tier 5 Customer and Professional liquidity rebate should encourage additional Customer and/or Professional order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange's addition of a new Tier 6 NOM Market Maker liquidity rebate for Participants that bring the largest amount of such liquidity should encourage Participants to direct additional NOM Market Maker order flow to the Exchange, and will dovetail with the amended rebate tiers below Tier 6.
Added liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts market participants to the Exchange. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. The Exchange believes that encouraging Participants to add Customer, Professional, and NOM Market Maker liquidity creates competition among options exchanges because the Exchange believes that the rebates may cause market participants to select NOM as a venue to send order flow. The Exchange is continuing to offer rebates at specified, lower percentage metrics in exchange for additional add Customer, Professional, and NOM Market Maker order flow being executed at the Exchange, which additional order flow should benefit other market participants.
The Exchange believes that the increase to the NOM Market Maker Penny Pilot Options Fees for Removing Liquidity does not create an undue burden on competition as the Exchange will uniformly assess non-NOM Market Makers the same Fees for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and offer these Participants the opportunity to reduce these fees by adding liquidity to the Exchange and qualifying for certain Customer and/or Professional and NOM Market Maker rebates. Thus, all but Customers will be assessed a uniform fee and Customers will continue to earn a lower fee because Customer liquidity offers unique benefits to the market which benefits all market participants.
Finally, the Exchange's proposal to amend
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of twelve U.S. options exchanges in which many sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or inadequate. These market forces support the Exchange belief that the proposed rebate structure and tiers proposed herein are competitive with rebates and tiers in place on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace continues to impact the rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the proposals set forth above.
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 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) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX. In particular, the Exchange proposes to amend certain Exchange Fees for Market Makers and adjust the Tiered Auction Transaction Fees for Initiating Participants based upon monthly average daily volume (ADV) as set forth in Section I of the Fee Schedule. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to introduce a tiered rebate in Section I, the BOX Volume Rebate (“BVR”) for all PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 250 contracts and under.
In Section I., Exchange Fees, the Exchange proposes to adopt a flat $0.30 fee for all Market Maker Improvement Orders in the PIP or COPIP, as well as Market Maker responses in the Solicitation or Facilitation auction mechanisms.
In Section I.A., Auction Transaction Tiered Fee Schedule for Initiating Participant
For example, an Initiating Participant who submits a Customer Order of 100 contracts to the PIP or COPIP for potential price improvement will also submit a matching 100 contract Primary Improvement Order to guarantee the execution. At the end of the PIP or COPIP auction, the Initiating Participant's Primary Improvement Order retains allocation priority on forty percent (40%)
The quantity submitted will still be calculated at the end of each month. Additionally, with this change the Exchange proposes to adjust the volume tiers and contract fees associated with each tier. The new per contract fee for Initiating Participants in Auction Transactions set forth in Section I.A. of the BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:
Finally, the Exchange proposes to introduce a tiered per contract rebate in Section I.D., the (“BOX Volume Rebate” or “BVR”), for all PIP Orders and COPIP Orders
The new per contract rebate for Participants in PIP and COPIP Transactions set forth in Section I.D. of the BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that establishing a flat $0.30 fee for all Market Maker Improvement Orders in the PIP or COPIP as well as Market Maker responses in the Solicitation or Facilitation auction mechanisms is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the proposal will potentially raise the Market Maker fee for auction responses, this will result in most Market Makers being assessed a lower fee than what they are currently assessed under the Section I.B tiered fee schedule. Further, the proposed fee is designed to be comparable to the fees that would be charged at competing venues.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory that Market Makers are charged lower fees in Improvement Orders in the PIP or COPIP and Solicitation or Facilitation responses than Professionals and Broker-Dealers. Generally, Market Makers have obligations on BOX that other Participants do not. They must maintain active two-sided markets in the classes in which they are appointed, and must meet certain minimum quoting requirements. Market Makers also provide significant contributions to overall market quality. Specifically, Market Makers can provide high volumes of liquidity and lowering their transaction fees will help attract a higher level of Market Maker order flow and create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit all Participants trading on BOX. The Exchange also believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Market Makers to be charged a higher fee than Public Customers. The securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features within the market structure for customer benefit.
Secondly, the Exchange believes its proposed amendments to the tiered fee structure for Initiating Participants in auction transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The reduced fees related to trading activity in BOX Auction Transactions are available to all BOX Options Participants that initiate Auction Transactions, and they may choose whether or not to trade on BOX to take advantage of the discounted fees for doing so. The Exchange believes it is fair and reasonable to base these volume tiers on the quantity of auction transactions submitted to the Exchange rather than the quantity traded, as Initiating Participants do not control whether an order they submit is executed or not. This proposal will allow Initiating Participants to fully control the volume tier for which they qualify. With this change, the Exchange also believes adjusting the volume tiers and contract fees associated with each tier is reasonable as Participants benefit from the opportunity to more easily attain a discounted fee tier.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide an incentive to BOX Participants to submit their customer orders to BOX, particularly into the PIP for potential price improvement. Such a discount will limit the exposure Initiating Participants have to Section II fees, where they are charged a fee for adding liquidity should their principal order execute against the customer order in any BOX Auction Transaction. The Exchange believes that making these changes to the tiered fee structure will attract more order flow to BOX, providing greater potential liquidity within the overall BOX market and its auction mechanisms, to the benefit of all BOX market participants.
Finally, the Exchange believes the adoption of a tiered per contract auction transaction rebate in Section I.D. for all PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 250 contracts and under is reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory. In particular, the proposed BVR will allow the Exchange to be competitive with other exchanges and to apply fees and credits in a manner that is equitable among all BOX Participants.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed volume thresholds are reasonable because they incentivize Participants to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Further, other exchanges employ incentive programs.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory to restrict the BVR to PIP and COPIP Orders of 250 contracts and under. The rebate is intended to incentivize Participants to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange, which is typically comprised of small order sizes. Large institutional orders of more than 250 contracts are encouraged to use the Facilitation and Solicitation Auction mechanisms.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are reasonable. Once the volume threshold is met, the Exchange will pay the rebates on applicable PIP and COPIP Orders. The Exchange also believes the proposed BVR is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Participants are eligible to receive a rebate provided they meet both the volume and order type requirements. The Exchange believes that applying the rebate to PIP and COPIP Orders provides these Participants with an added incentive to transact a greater number of Public Customer Orders on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that incentivizing Participants to submit PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange will provide all market participants an opportunity to interact with that order flow. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to only apply the rebate to certain order types because the Exchange is not seeking to incentivize Participants to transact in order types other than PIP and COPIP Orders at this time. Further, PIP and COPIP Orders bring unique benefits to the marketplace in terms of liquidity and order interaction. It is an important Exchange function to provide an opportunity to all market participants to trade against these PIP and COPIP Orders.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide a higher rebate for PIP Orders than COPIP Orders. The rebate is intended to incentivize Participants to submit PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange believes that COPIP Orders do not need the same level of incentivization since the COPIP is a new offering on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the lower COPIP rebate will still provide greater liquidity and trading opportunities for all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed fee changes are reasonably designed to enhance competition in BOX transactions, particularly auction transactions.
The proposed rule change establishes a flat fee for Market Maker responses to orders in the PIP and COPIP, which the Exchange believes does not impose a burden on competition because all Market Makers will be affected to the same extent.
The proposed rule change also modifies the tiered fees charged to Initiating Participants based on their monthly ADV in Auction Transactions. BOX notes that its market model and fees are generally intended to benefit retail customers by providing incentives for Participants to submit their customer order flow to BOX, and to the PIP in particular. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee changes burden competition by creating such a disparity between the fees an Initiating Participant pays and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain participants being unable to compete with initiators in the PIP and COPIP The Exchange does not believe competitive responders in the PIP and COPIP will be burdened from competing in these auctions. In fact, the Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these Participants from adding liquidity and competing in Auction Transactions and will help promote competition by providing incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for retail customers to receive additional price improvement.
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 Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to adopt a MIAX Market Maker sliding scale for transaction fees.
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 Fee Schedule to adopt (i) a MIAX Market Maker
The new sliding scale for MIAX Market Maker transaction fees is based on the substantially similar fees of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”).
The sliding scale would apply to all MIAX Market Makers for transactions in all products except Mini Options. A MIAX Market Maker's initial $0.15 per contract rate will be reduced if the MIAX Market Maker reaches the volume thresholds set forth in the sliding scale in a month. As a MIAX Market Maker's monthly volume increases, its per contract transaction fee would decrease. Under the sliding scale, the first 750,000 contracts traded in a month would be assessed at $0.15 per contract. The next 750,000 contracts traded (up to 1,500,000 total contracts traded) would be assessed at $0.10 per contract. The next 1,500,000 contracts traded (up to 3,000,000 total contracts traded) would be assessed at $0.05 per contract. All contracts above 3,000,000 contracts traded in a month would be assessed at $0.03 per contract. The Exchange will
The Exchange believes the proposed sliding scale is objective in that the fee reductions are based solely on reaching stated volume thresholds. The Exchange believes that the implementation of a tiered fee schedule may incent firms to display their orders on the Exchange and increase the volume of contracts traded here.
As mentioned above, the Exchange notes that the proposed sliding fee scale for MIAX Market Makers structured on contract volume thresholds is based on the substantially similar fees of the CBOE.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to assess MIAX Market Makers a $0.02 fee for Mini Option transactions. The new transaction fee for Mini Options is identical to that charged by CBOE.
The Exchange notes that Mini Options have a smaller exercise and assignment value due to the reduced number of shares they deliver as compared to standard option contracts. Despite the smaller exercise and assignment value of a Mini Option, the cost to the Exchange to process quotes and orders in Mini Options, perform regulatory surveillance and retain quotes and orders for archival purposes is the same as for a standard contract. This leaves the Exchange in a position of trying to strike the right balance of fees applicable to Mini Options—too low and the costs of processing Mini Option quotes and orders will necessarily cause the Exchange to either raise fees for everyone or only for participants trading Mini Options; too high and participants may be deterred from trading Mini Options, leaving the Exchange less able to recoup costs associated with development of the product, which is designed to offer investors a way to take less risk in high-dollar securities. The Exchange, therefore, believes that adopting fees for Mini Options that are in some cases lower than fees for standard contracts, is appropriate, not unreasonable, not unfairly discriminatory and not burdensome on competition between participants, or between the Exchange and other exchanges in the listed options marketplace.
Consistent with the adoption of the new sliding fee scale and the $0.02 fee for transactions in Mini Options for MIAX Market Makers, the Exchange proposes to delete the existing transaction fees that currently apply to MIAX Market Markers. Specifically, the Exchange will no longer charge: (i) RMMs $0.08 per contract for standard options or $.008 for Mini Options; (ii) LMMs $0.08 per contract for standard options or $0.008 for Mini Options; (iii) DLMMs and PLMMs $0.08 per contract for standard options or $0.008 for Mini Options; and (iv) DPLMMs $0.08 per contract for standard options or $0.008 for Mini Options. The Exchange notes that the new sliding scale for MIAX Market Makers will increase transaction fees for all Market Markers for the first 1,500,000 contracts traded per month in standard option contracts. The Exchange also notes that the new Mini Option fee for MIAX Market Makers will increase transaction fees for all Market Makers in Mini Options.
The proposed changes will become operative on March 1, 2014.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed volume based discount fee structure is not discriminatory in that all MIAX Market Makers are eligible to submit (or not submit) liquidity, and may do so at their discretion in the daily volumes they choose during the course of the billing period. All similarly situated MIAX Market Makers are subject to the same fee structure, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Volume based discounts have been widely adopted by options and equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all MIAX Market Makers on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The proposed fee levels and volume thresholds are reasonably designed to be comparable to those of other options exchanges and to attract additional liquidity and order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to assess MIAX Market Makers a $0.02 fee for Mini Option transactions is reasonable. It is difficult to compare the proposed $0.02 amount to the amount assessed to MIAX Market Makers for standard options transactions, as that amount can differ depending on which tier each MIAX Market Maker reaches in the MIAX Market Maker sliding scale. However, $0.02 is less than 1/10th [sic] the fee assessed at the first tier of the MIAX Market Maker sliding scale for standard options transactions. The Exchange believes that these MIAX Market Maker Mini Option fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, they will apply equally to all MIAX Market Makers. Second, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fee amounts to MIAX Market Makers than to some other market participants because MIAX Market Makers have obligations, such as quoting obligations, that other market participants do not possess. Further, these lower fees are intended to encourage Market Makers to quote
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
In notice document 2014–05179, appearing on pages 13711–13726, in the issue of Tuesday, March 11, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 13711, in the second column, the document heading is corrected to read as set forth above.
In notice document 2014–04792, appearing on pages 12558–12562 in the issue of Wednesday, March 5, 2014, make the following correction:
On page 12562, in the third column, on the tenth and eleventh lines, the entry “[insert date 21 days from publication in the
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current Priority Customer Rebate Program (the “Program”) to modify the volume thresholds of tiers 3 and 4.
The Exchange will aggregate the contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated Members for purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed options for the duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive its credit under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate direct payment.
In addition, the rebate payments will be calculated from the first executed contract at the applicable threshold per contract credit with the rebate payments made at the highest achieved volume tier for each contract traded in that month. For example, if Member Firm XYZ, Inc. (“XYZ”) has enough Priority Customer contracts to achieve 2.5% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed option contracts during the month of October, XYZ will receive a credit of $0.18 for each Priority Customer contract executed in the month of October.
The purpose of the Program is to encourage Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange. Increased Priority Customer volume will provide for greater liquidity, which benefits all market participants. The practice of incentivizing increased retail customer order flow in order to attract professional liquidity providers (Market-Makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets. As such, marketing fee programs,
The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms that route some Priority Customer orders to the Exchange to increase the number of orders that are sent to the Exchange to achieve the next threshold and to incent new participants to send Priority Customer orders as well. Increasing the number of orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall. Similarly, the different credit rates at the different tier levels were based on an analysis of revenue and volume levels and are intended to provide increasing “rewards” for increasing the volume of trades sent to the Exchange. The specific amounts of the tiers and rates were set in order to encourage suppliers of Priority Customer order flow to reach for higher tiers.
The Exchange limits the Program to multiply-listed options classes on MIAX because MIAX does not compete with other exchanges for order flow in the proprietary, singly-listed products.
The Exchange excludes mini-options and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Exchange Rule 1400 from the Program. The Exchange notes these exclusions are nearly identical to the ones made by CBOE.
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The proposed changes will become operative on March 1, 2014.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed Priority Customer Rebate Program is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program is reasonably designed because it will incent providers of Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive a credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed rebate program is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Priority Customer order flow qualifies for the Program, an increase in Priority Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Similarly, offering increasing credits for executing higher percentages of total national customer volume (increased credit rates at increased volume tiers) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such increased rates and tiers encourage Members to direct increased amounts of Priority Customer contracts to the Exchange. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit those Members who receive the lower tier levels, or do not qualify for the Program at all, by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
Limiting the Program to multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX is reasonable because those parties trading heavily in multiply-listed classes will now begin to receive a credit for such trading, and is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange does not trade any singly-listed products at this time. If at such time the Exchange develops proprietary products, the Exchange anticipates having to devote a lot of resources to develop them, and therefore would need to retain funds collected in order to recoup those expenditures.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Members to direct their Priority Customer orders to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden on non-Priority Customers, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the rebate program should incent Members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it reduces the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market participants to direct their customer order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow like the one being proposed in this filing is consistent with the above-mentioned goals of the Act. This is especially true for the smaller options markets, such as MIAX, which is competing for volume with much larger exchanges that dominate the options trading industry. As a new exchange, MIAX has a nominal percentage of the average daily trading volume in options, so it is unlikely that the customer rebate program could cause any competitive harm to the options market or to market participants. Rather, the customer rebate program is a modest attempt by a small options market to attract order volume away from larger competitors by adopting an innovative pricing strategy. The Exchange notes that if the rebate program resulted in a modest percentage increase in the average daily trading volume in options executing on MIAX, while such percentage would represent a large volume increase for MIAX, it would represent a minimal reduction in volume of its larger competitors in the industry. The Exchange believes that the
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Priority Customer Rebate Program (the “Program”)
The Program is based on the substantially similar fees of another competing options exchange.
The Exchange proposes modifying the Program to provide for a $0.20 per contract credit for transactions in MIAX Select Symbols. MIAX Select Symbols will initially include options overlying AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM. Thus, the Exchange will credit each Member $0.20 per contract resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member executed on Exchange in AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM. The $0.20 per contract credit would be in lieu of the applicable credit that would otherwise apply to the transaction based on the volume thresholds. The Exchange notes that all the other aspects of the Program would continue to apply to the credits (
For example, if Member Firm ABC, Inc. (“ABC”) has enough Priority Customer contracts to achieve 0.3% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed option contracts during the month of October, ABC will receive a credit of $0.10 for each Priority Customer contract executed in the month of October. However, any qualifying Priority Customer transactions during such month that occurred in AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM would be credited at the $0.20 per contact rate versus the standard credit of $0.10. Similarly, if Member Firm XYZ, Inc. (“XYZ”) has enough Priority Customer contracts to achieve 2.5% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed option contracts during the month of October, XYZ will receive a credit of $0.18 for each Priority Customer contract executed in the month of October. However, any qualifying Priority Customer transactions during such month that occurred in AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM would be credited at the $0.20 per contact rate versus the standard credit of $0.18.
The purpose of the amendment to the Program is to further encourage Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange in these high volume symbols. Increased Priority Customer volume will provide for greater liquidity, which benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The practice of incentivizing increased retail customer order flow in order to attract professional liquidity providers (Market-Makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets. As such, marketing fee programs,
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement the new transaction fees beginning March 1, 2014.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed Priority Customer Rebate Program is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program is reasonably designed because it will incent providers of Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive a credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposal to increase the incentives in the high volume select symbols is also reasonably designed to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange with other options exchanges that also offer increased incentives to higher volume symbols. The proposed rebate program is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders in the select symbols. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders in the select symbols are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Priority Customer order flow qualifies for the Program, an increase in Priority Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 list and trade the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”): iShares Core Allocation Conservative ETF; iShares Core Allocation Moderate ETF; iShares Core Allocation Moderate Growth ETF; and iShares Core Allocation Growth ETF. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares:
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 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. Commentary .06 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 nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
The iShares Core Allocation Conservative ETF seeks to create a portfolio with a conservative risk profile by allocating its assets among the iShares Core suite of equity and fixed income exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), as described below.
The Fund will be a fund of funds and seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances,
The Fund will be an actively managed ETF that does not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. BFA will select securities for the Fund using a proprietary, model-based investment process that seeks to maximize returns for the Fund's stated risk/return profile through investments in Underlying Funds.
The Fund intends to hold investments which in the aggregate have a conservative risk/return profile as determined by BFA. A “conservative” risk allocation typically emphasizes significant exposure to fixed income securities, while maintaining smaller exposure to equity securities, in an effort to preserve capital and reduce volatility of returns. As of June 30, 2013, BFA's model recommended an allocation of approximately 20% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities and 80% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in fixed income securities.
The Fund may lend securities representing up to one-third of the value of the Fund's total assets (including the value of the collateral received).
The iShares Core Allocation Moderate ETF will seek to create a portfolio with a moderate risk profile by allocating its assets among the iShares Core suite of equity and fixed income ETFs, as described below.
The Fund will be a fund of funds and will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, generally at least 80% of its net assets in the securities of Underlying Funds that themselves seek investment results corresponding to their own underlying indexes.
The Fund will be an actively managed ETF that does not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. BFA will select securities for the Fund using a proprietary, model-based investment process that seeks to maximize returns for the Fund's stated risk/return profile through investments in Underlying Funds.
The Fund intends to hold investments which in the aggregate have a moderate risk/return profile as determined by BFA. A “moderate” risk allocation typically emphasizes exposure to fixed income securities, while maintaining some exposure to equity securities, in an effort to provide an opportunity for some capital preservation and for low to moderate capital appreciation. As of June 30, 2013, BFA's model recommended an allocation of approximately 40% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities and 60% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in fixed income securities.
The Fund may lend securities representing up to one-third of the value of the Fund's total assets (including the value of the collateral received).
The iShares Core Allocation Moderate Growth ETF will seek to create a portfolio with a moderate growth risk profile by allocating its assets among the iShares Core suite of equity and fixed income ETFs, as described below.
The Fund will be a fund of funds and will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, generally at least 80% of its net assets in the securities of Underlying Funds that themselves seek investment results corresponding to their own underlying indexes.
The Fund will be an actively managed ETF that will not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. BFA will select securities for the Fund using a proprietary, model-based investment process that seeks to maximize returns for the Fund's stated risk/return profile through investments in Underlying Funds.
The Fund intends to hold investments which in the aggregate have a moderate growth risk/return profile as determined by BFA. A “moderate growth” risk allocation typically emphasizes exposure to equity securities, while maintaining some exposure to fixed income securities, in an effort to provide an opportunity for moderate capital appreciation and some capital preservation. As of June 30, 2013, BFA's model recommended an allocation of approximately 60% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities and 40% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in fixed income securities.
The Fund may lend securities representing up to one-third of the value of the Fund's total assets (including the value of the collateral received).
The iShares Core Allocation Growth ETF seeks to create a portfolio with a growth risk profile by allocating its assets among the iShares Core suite of equity and fixed income ETFs, as described below.
The Fund will be a fund of funds and will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing under normal circumstances generally at least 80% of its net assets in the securities of Underlying Funds that themselves seek investment results corresponding to their own underlying indexes.
The Fund will be an actively managed ETF that will not seek to replicate the performance of a specified index. BFA will select securities for the Fund using a proprietary, model-based investment process that seeks to maximize returns for the Fund's stated risk/return profile through investments in Underlying Funds.
The Fund intends to hold investments which in the aggregate have a moderate growth risk/return profile as determined by BFA. A “moderate growth” risk allocation typically emphasizes exposure to equity securities, while maintaining some exposure to fixed income securities, in an effort to provide an opportunity for moderate capital appreciation and some capital preservation. As of June 30, 2013, BFA's model recommended an allocation of approximately 60% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities and 40% to Underlying Funds that invest primarily in fixed income securities.
The Fund may lend securities representing up to one-third of the value of the Fund's total assets (including the value of the collateral received).
While each Fund, under normal circumstances, generally will invest at least 80% of its assets in Underlying Funds, as described above, each Fund may invest in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.
Each Fund may invest in other exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) in addition to the Underlying Funds described above.
Each Fund may invest in short-term instruments on an ongoing basis to provide liquidity or for other reasons. Short-term instruments are generally short-term investments, including (i) shares of money market funds (including those advised by BFA or otherwise affiliated with BFA); (ii) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities (including government-sponsored enterprises); (iii) negotiable certificates of deposit (“CDs”), bankers' acceptances, fixed-time deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks (including non-U.S. branches) and similar institutions; (iv) commercial paper rated, at the date of purchase, “Prime-1” by Moody's® Investors Service, Inc., “F–1” by Fitch Inc., or “A–1” by Standard & Poor's® Financial Services LLC, or if unrated, of comparable quality as determined by BFA; (v) non-convertible corporate debt securities (
Each Fund will be classified as “non-diversified.” A non-diversified fund is a fund that is not limited by the 1940 Act with regard to the percentage of its assets that may be invested in the securities of a single issuer.
Each Fund intends to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct its operations so as to qualify as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code.
A Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets (calculated at the time of investment) in assets deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance.
The net asset value (“NAV”) for each Fund normally will be determined once daily Monday through Friday, generally as of the regularly scheduled close of business of the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) on each day that the NYSE is open for trading, based on prices at the time of closing provided that (a) any Fund assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar will be translated into U.S. dollars at the prevailing market rates on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more data service providers, and (b) U.S. fixed-income assets may be valued as of the announced closing time for trading in fixed-income instruments in a particular market or exchange. The NAV of each Fund will be calculated by dividing the value of the net assets of a Fund (
The value of the securities and other assets and liabilities held by each Fund will be determined pursuant to valuation policies and procedures approved by the Trust's Board of Trustees (“Board”).
Equity investments, including the shares of Underlying Funds and shares of other ETPs, will be valued at market value, which will generally be determined using the last reported official closing price or last trading price on the exchange or market on which the security is primarily traded at the time of valuation.
Generally, trading in U.S. government securities and certain fixed-income securities is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the close of business on the NYSE. The values of such securities used in computing the NAV of the Funds will be determined as of such times.
Repurchase agreements will generally be valued at par. Other short-term instruments will generally be valued at the last available bid price received from independent pricing services. In determining the value of a fixed income investment, pricing services may use certain information with respect to transactions in such investments, quotations from dealers, pricing matrixes, market transactions in comparable investments, various relationships observed in the market between investments, and calculated yield measures. In certain circumstances, short-term instruments may be valued on the basis of amortized cost.
When market quotations are not readily available or are believed by BFA to be unreliable, a Fund's investments will be valued at fair value. Fair value determinations will be made by BFA in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Trust's Board. BFA may conclude that a market quotation is not readily available or is unreliable if a security or other asset or liability does not have a price source due to its lack of liquidity, if a market quotation differs significantly from recent price quotations or otherwise no longer appears to reflect fair value, where the security or other asset or liability is thinly traded, or where there is a significant event subsequent to the most recent market quotation. A “significant event” is an event that, in the judgment of BFA, is likely to cause a material change to the closing market price of the asset or liability held by a Fund.
According to the Registration Statement, the consideration for purchase of Creation Units of Shares of a Fund generally will consist of the in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities (including any portion of such securities for which cash may be substituted) (“Deposit Securities”) and the Cash Component computed as described below. Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to creation requests received in proper form. The Fund Deposit represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of a Fund. A Creation Unit will consist of 50,000 Shares of a Fund. The Creation Unit size for a Fund may change.
The “Cash Component” will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which is an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Securities, and serves to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount.
Creation Units may be purchased only by or through a DTC participant that has entered into an authorized participant agreement (as described in the Registration Statement) with the Distributor (such DTC participant, an “Authorized Participant”). Except as noted below, creation orders must be received by the Distributor in proper form generally before the closing time of the regular trading session of the Exchange (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of a Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. On days when the Exchange or other markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require orders to create Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day. A standard creation transaction fee will be imposed to offset the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the issuance of Creation Units.
Although the Trust will not ordinarily permit partial or full cash purchases of Creation Units of Shares of a Fund, when partial or full cash purchases of Creation Units are available or specified for a Fund, they will be effected in essentially the same manner as in-kind purchases thereof. In the case of a partial or full cash purchase, the Authorized Participant must pay the cash equivalent of the Deposit Securities
BFA will make available through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) on each business day prior to the opening of business on the Exchange, the list of names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security and the amount of the Cash Component to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information as of the end of the previous business day for each Fund). Such Fund Deposit will be applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, to purchases of Creation Units of shares of a given Fund until such time as the next-announced Fund Deposit is made available.
The identity and number of shares of the Deposit Securities will change pursuant to changes in the composition of a Fund's portfolio and as rebalancing adjustments and corporate action events are reflected from time to time by BFA with a view to the investment objective of a Fund. The composition of the Deposit Securities may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the component securities constituting a Fund's portfolio.
The Funds reserve the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Security that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). The Funds also reserve the right to permit or require a “cash in lieu” amount in certain circumstances, including circumstances in which (i) the delivery of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant would be restricted under applicable securities or other local laws or (ii) the delivery of the Deposit Security to the Authorized Participant would result in the disposition of the Deposit Security by the Authorized Participant becoming restricted under applicable securities or other local laws, or in certain other situations.
Shares of a Fund may be redeemed by Authorized Participants only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor or its agent and only on a business day. The Funds will not redeem shares in amounts less than Creation Units. Each Fund generally will redeem Creation Units for Fund Securities, as defined below.
Except as noted below, redemption orders must be received by the Distributor in proper form generally before the closing time of the regular trading session of the Exchange (normally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time) in each case on the date such order is placed in order for redemption of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of a Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. On days when the Exchange or other markets close earlier than normal, a Fund may require orders to redeem Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day. A standard redemption transaction fee will be imposed to offset the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the redemption of Creation Units.
BFA will make available through the NSCC, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange on each business day, the designated portfolio of securities (including any portion of such securities for which cash may be substituted) that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day (“Fund Securities”) and a Cash Amount (as defined below). Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities that are applicable to creations of Creation Units.
Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for a Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of Fund Securities, plus the Cash Amount, which is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after the receipt of a redemption request in proper form, and the value of Fund Securities, less a redemption transaction fee.
The Trust may, in its sole discretion, substitute a “cash in lieu” amount to replace any Fund Security. The Funds also reserve the right to permit or require a “cash in lieu” amount in certain circumstances, including circumstances in which (i) the delivery of a Fund Security to the Authorized Participant would be restricted under applicable securities or other local laws or (ii) the delivery of a Fund Security to the Authorized Participant would result in the disposition of the Fund Security by the Authorized Participant becoming restricted under applicable securities or other local laws, or in certain other situations. The amount of cash paid out in such cases will be equivalent to the value of the substituted security listed as a Fund Security. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the difference is required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder.
The Funds' Web site (
On a daily basis, each Fund will disclose for each portfolio security or other financial instrument of each Fund the following information on the Funds' Web site: Ticker symbol (if applicable), name of security and financial instrument, number of shares and dollar value of securities and financial instruments held in the portfolio, and percentage weighting of the security and financial instrument in the portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities required to be delivered in exchange for each Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via NSCC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of a Fund.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Funds that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
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 Funds.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Funds will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing surveillance procedures administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns. 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 of each Fund, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares of each Fund, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs, from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares of the Funds, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IOPV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the IOPV is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that each Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. Eastern time each trading day.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
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 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange. The Adviser has implemented a “fire wall” with respect to its affiliated broker-dealers regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a Fund's portfolio. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares of the Funds, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs with markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares of the Funds, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs from such markets and other entities. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares of the Funds, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs from ISG member markets or markets with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. A Fund may hold up [sic] an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets (calculated at the time of investment) in assets deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance.
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 of each Fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio for each Fund will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the IOPV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Funds will disclose on their Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for a 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 will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Funds will include a form of the prospectus for the Funds and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of a Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of a Fund may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding a Fund's holdings, the IOPV, 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 additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products 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 of the Funds, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares, shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares as well as shares of the Underlying Funds, and shares of other ETPs from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. As noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding a Fund's holdings, the IOPV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by providing them with additional choices of transparent and tradeable products.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled “Options Pricing,” at Section 2 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 Customer Routing Fees.
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.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Chapter XV, Section 2(3) to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange to route orders to away markets.
Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.95 per contract Routing Fee to any options exchange. The Customer
With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (“NOS”),
The Exchange is proposing to assess market participants routing Customer orders to PHLX a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. Today the Exchange assesses a $0.05 per contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed with respect to Customer orders routed to PHLX. The Exchange would increase the Fixed Fee for Customer orders routed to PHLX from $0.05 to $0.10 per contract to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing these orders.
Today the Exchange does not assess a fee with respect to Customer orders routed to BX Options. The Exchange noted in a previous rule change routing proposal that it would not assess a fee for Customer orders routed to BX Options because the Exchange retains the rebate that is paid by that market.
Similarly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the Customer Routing Fee assessed when routing to all other options exchanges, if the away market pays a rebate, from a $0.00 to a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee, in order to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing these orders. The Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee assessed by the away market, rather the Exchange only assess the Fixed Fee, because the Exchange would continue to retain the rebate to offset the cost to route orders to these away markets. Today, the Exchange incurs certain costs when routing to away markets that pay rebates. The Exchange desires to recoup additional costs at this time.
NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to PHLX. Today, the Exchange assesses orders routed to PHLX a lower Fixed Fee for routing Customer orders as compared to the Fixed Fee assessed to other options exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to increase the Fixed Fee to recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection with routing these orders on behalf of its members.
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to BX Options from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to BX Options, similar to the amount of Fixed Fee it proposes to assess for orders routed to PHLX. The Exchange is proposing to assess a Fixed Fee to recoup additional costs that are incurred by the Exchange in connection with routing these orders on behalf of its members. While the Exchange would continue to retain any rebate paid by BX Options, the Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee that is charged by BX Options for Customer orders.
The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to route Customer orders to PHLX and BX Options, as compared to other options exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage certain infrastructure to offer those markets lower fees as explained further below. Similarly, the Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets, other than PHLX and BX Options, in the instance the away market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing orders to these away markets. While the Exchange would continue to retain any rebate paid by these away markets, the Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee that is charged by the away market for Customer orders. The Fixed Fee for Customer orders is an approximation of the costs the Exchange will be charged for routing orders to away markets. As a general matter, the
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.05 to $0.10 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee to all orders routed to PHLX in addition to the transaction fee assessed by that market. With respect to BX Options, the Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee for all orders routed to BX Options and would continue to uniformly not assess the actual transaction fee, as is the case today. The Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.10 per contract Fixed Fee to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX exchanges because the Exchange is passing along the saving realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are routed to PHLX or BX Options and is providing those saving to all market participants. Furthermore, it is important to note that when orders are routed to an away market they are routed based on price first.
The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets, other than PHLX and BX Options, in the instance the away market pays a rebate from a Fixed Fee of $0.00 to $0.10 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess a lower Routing Fee, as compared to away markets that do not pay a rebate, because the Exchange retains the rebate that is paid by that market. The Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee when routing Customer orders to a NASDAQ OMX exchange that pays a rebate as it would to route an order to an away market (non-NASDAQ OMX exchange) that pays a rebate. These proposals would apply uniformly to all market participants when routing to an away market that pays a rebate, other than PHLX and BX Options. Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for routing or “DNR” to avoid Routing Fees.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange is applying the same Routing Fees to all market participants in the same manner dependent on the routing venue, with the exception of Customers. The Exchange will continue to assess separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the lowest fees as compared to non-Customers when routing orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to non-customer orders.
The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to recoup its costs when routing Customer orders to PHLX or BX Options as well as away markets that pay a rebate when such orders are designated as available for routing by the market participant. The Exchange continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when Customer orders are routed to PHLX and BX Options and is providing those savings to all market participants. Today, other options exchanges also assess fixed routing fees to recoup costs incurred by the exchange to route orders to away markets.
Market participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for routing or “DNR” to avoid Routing Fees.
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,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Petrotech Oil & Gas, Inc. because of questions regarding the accuracy of publicly available information about the company's operations.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA–4165–DR), dated 03/06/2014.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing, And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/06/2014, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13907B and for economic injury is 13908B.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of Renewal of the Charter and Request for Nominations.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), pursuant to Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(c)(1)) as amended, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. II),
In order to receive full consideration, nominations for current vacancies should be received not later than April 18, 2014. Nominations will be accepted after April 18 until the expiration of the charter term on March 17, 2018, for appointments on a rolling basis as vacancies arise.
Submissions should be sent to Tiffany Enoch, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement at
Questions regarding this request for nominations 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), established a private-sector trade advisory system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests.
Section 135(a)(2) directs the President to: Seek information and advice from representative elements of the private sector and the non-Federal governmental sector with respect to
(A) Negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into a trade agreement under [title I of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 2103 of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002];
(B) The operation of any trade agreement once entered into, including preparation for dispute settlement panel proceedings to which the United States is a party; and
(C) Other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States.
Section 135(c)(1) of the 1974 Trade Act provides that: [t]he 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. Such committees shall, insofar as is practicable, be representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, service, investment, defense, and other interests, respectively, including small business interests, and shall be organized by the United States Trade Representative and the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Labor, Agriculture, the Treasury, or other executive departments, as appropriate. The members of such committees shall be appointed by the United States Trade Representative in consultation with such Secretaries.
Section 14 of the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 directs the President to convene the TACA “in order to facilitate the goals and objectives of the African Growth and Opportunity Act and this Act, and to maintain ongoing discussions with African trade and agricultural ministries and private sector organizations on issues of mutual concern, including regional and international trade concerns and World Trade Organization issues.” Pursuant to these provisions, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is renewing the charter of the Trade Advisory Committee on Africa (TACA) concurrent with this notice.
The duties of the TACA are to provide the President, through the USTR, with policy advice on issues involving trade and development in sub-Saharan Africa. The TACA is expected to meet an average of two to three times a year in Washington, DC.
Members serve without compensation and are responsible for all expenses incurred to attend the meetings. TACA members are appointed by the USTR. Appointments are made at the chartering of the TACA and periodically throughout the four-year charter term. Members serve at the discretion of the USTR. Appointments to the TACA expire at the end of the TACA's charter term, in this case, March 17, 2018.
Members are selected to represent their respective sponsoring U.S. entity's interests on sub-Saharan African trade matters, and thus nominees are considered foremost based upon their ability to carry out the goals of section 135(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Other criteria are the nominee's knowledge of and expertise in international trade issues as relevant to the work of the TACA and that representation on the TACA is balanced in terms of sectors, demographics, and other interests. Additionally, USTR may appoint members expert in a relevant subject matter to serve in an individual capacity. Appointments to the TACA are made without regard to political affiliation.
USTR is soliciting nominations for membership on the TACA. In order to be appointed to the TACA, 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 whose members (or funders) have a demonstrated interest in issues relevant to trade and development in sub-Saharan Africa or that (a) is directly engaged in the import or export of goods or that sells its services abroad, or (b) is an association of such entities.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, 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 TACA 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 TACA 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.
Submit applications to Tiffany Enoch, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental and Affairs and Public Engagement. Send applications to:
Applicants that meet the eligibility criteria will be considered for membership based on the following criteria: Ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's and its subsector's interests on trade and development matters; knowledge of and experience in trade and development matters relevant to the work of the Committee; and ensuring that the Committee is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.
ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host a public meeting seeking input on the current operation and future plans to enhance the Data Capture and Management Program's (DCM) Research Data Exchange (RDE). The meeting will take place Wednesday, March 26, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. (EDT) to 4:30 p.m. (EDT) at the Federal Highway Administration's Research Center, located at 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101. Persons planning to attend the meeting should register online at
The meeting will discuss:
• Current functionality and operation of the RDE;
• Potential functions, resources or services to enhance the operation of the RDE;
• Process and plans for collecting, managing and supporting the use of connected vehicle related data sets to be posted on the RDE;
• Need for and potential priorities for connected vehicle relates data sets to make available on the RDE in the future; and
• Opportunities to enhance the operation and use of the RDE.
The meeting is designed to solicit feedback from stakeholders who are current users of the connected vehicle related data sets currently available to access and use on the RDE and is an appropriate opportunity for public sector, researchers, and private sector involved with ITS transportation management systems and connected vehicle related applications. The meeting will engage these stakeholders in a discussion of the current functionality, possible enhancements to the RDE, and possible priorities for future connected vehicle related data sets to make available on the RDE.
The RDE makes available archived and real-time data from multiple sources and multiple modes on the surface transportation system. The RDE provides access to ITS data sets from multiple sources including connected vehicles, probe messages, traffic monitoring and reporting devices (e.g., volumes, speed, and crashes), incidents, traffic signals, weather sensors, and transit vehicles. Data accessible through the RDE is quality-checked, well-documented, and freely available to the public. These data sets allow for the electronic access to a wide range of issues and factors to be considered or used for analysis and research. This data sharing capability supports the needs of researchers, application developers, and others, while reducing their costs and encouraging innovation.
This meeting's discussions will be fairly technical and predominantly focused on collecting, storing, using, and sharing multi-source and multi-modal data with traffic management systems or ITS devices. A final report will be prepared summarizing the information presented, discussed, feedback provided, and recommendations identified at this meeting.
For more information, please contact Carlos Alban, Transportation Program Specialist, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, 1100 New Jersey Ave. SE., Suite #50, Washington, DC 20003, 202–721–4223,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is being given that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a request from the City of Asheville and Buncombe County to waive the requirement that approximately 50 acres of airport property, located at the Asheville Regional Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2014
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2–260, Atlanta, GA 30337–2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Lew Bleiweis, Airport Director, Asheville
Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2–260, Atlanta, GA 30337–2747, (404) 305–7142. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by the City of Asheville and Buncombe County to release approximately 50 acres of airport property at the Asheville Regional Airport. This property was originally acquired with FAA assistance in 1958. This property is currently being used by the State of North Carolina for the Western North Carolina Agricultural Center and is compatible with airport operations.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Asheville Regional Airport.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Revised Notice of Intent.
The FHWA is issuing this revised notice of intent (NOI) to inform the public that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Hawaii County, Hawaii. This notice revises the NOI that was published in the
Ricardo Suarez, Division Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. Contact Information: 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80228. Telephone: (720) 963–3448.
The FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), and the Hawaii Department of Transportation will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a surface transportation project in the South Kohala and North Kona Districts, of the island of Hawaii. The project intends to address the linkage between the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (State Highway 19) and the Mamalahoa Highway (State Highway 190) in the vicinity of the newly realigned Daniel K. Inouye Highway (formerly Saddle Road [State Highway 200]). This proposed link would constitute the final piece to complete one of the three highway arterials that connect the east and west regions on the island of Hawaii. This proposed link has been identified in the Hawaii Long-Range Plan for the purpose of adding inter-regional capacity. This notice updates a notice for the project originally published in the July 13, 1999,
The purpose of the project is to further develop this inter-regional capacity and connectivity link by considering various alternatives and their impacts, including the no-build scenario, through the environmental impact statement process. Secondary and supporting purposes to this primary goal are to: (1) Improve the efficiency and operational level of traffic movement between East Hawaii and West Hawaii in general; and (2) support the unique modal needs along this corridor, such as commercial and military transportation uses.
A notice describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and individuals who have expressed an interest in the project. A public hearing will be held after publication of the Draft EIS. A public notice will be placed in a daily newspaper to announce the date, time and place of the meeting and the availability of the Draft EIS for public and agency review and copying.
To ensure that the full range of issues relating to the proposed action are identified and addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), invites all interested parties to comment on its proposed renewal without change to the collection of information through its “Designation of Exempt Person” (“DoEP”) report used by banks and other depository institutions to designate eligible customers as exempt from the requirement to report transactions in currency over $10,000. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before May 19, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, Virginia 22183, Attention: PRA Comments—BSA-DoEP Renewal. DoEP comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address:
The FinCEN Regulatory Helpline at 800–949–2732, select option 8.
The Secretary of the Treasury was granted authority in 1992, with the enactment of 31 U.S.C. 5313, to permit financial institutions to exempt certain persons from the requirement to file currency transaction reports.
The information collected on the DoEP is required to be provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5313, as implemented by FinCEN regulations found at 31 CFR 1020.315(a)-(i). The information collected under this requirement is made available to appropriate agencies and organizations as disclosed in FinCEN's Privacy Act System of Records Notice relating to BSA Reports.
The report is accessible on the FinCEN Web site at:
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. Records required to be retained under the Bank Secrecy Act must be retained for five years.
United States Mint.
Notice and request for comments.
The United States Mint invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on currently approved information collection 1525–0012, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The United States Mint, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments on the United States Mint customer satisfaction and opinion surveys and focus group interviews.
Written comments should be received on or before May 19, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvonne Pollard; Compliance Branch; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., 6th Floor; Washington, DC 20220; (202) 354–6784 (this is not a toll-free number);
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection package should be directed to Yvonne Pollard; Compliance Branch; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., 6th Floor; Washington, DC 20220; (202) 354–6784 (this is not a toll-free number);
United States Mint, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
Pursuant to the Coin Modernization, Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 302), the United States Mint invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on its intention to use opinion surveys and focus group interviews to solicit the public's views on the nation's circulating coins. The intent is to survey the general public on topics including, but not limited to, the following: The one-cent coin (penny), characteristics of potential alternative metals for use in coin production, and consumer behavior with the use of coins. This request for comment is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U. S. C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).
Written comments should be received on or before May 19, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvonne Pollard; Compliance Branch; United States Mint; 801 9th Street, NW., 6th Floor; Washington, DC 20220; (202) 354–6784 (this is not a toll-free number);
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection package should be directed to the Office of Coin Studies; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW., 6th Floor; Washington, DC 20220; (202) 354–6600 (this is not a toll-free number);
United States Mint, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The United States Mint invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on currently approved information collection 1525–0013, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The United States Mint, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments on the United States Mint Application for Intellectual Property Use form.
Written comments should be received on or before May 19, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvonne Pollard; Compliance Branch;, United States Mint; 801 9th Street, NW., 6th Floor; Washington, DC 20220; (202) 354–6784 (this is not a toll-free number);
Requests for additional information or
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee will meet on April 18, 2014, at the American Association of Airport Executives Conference Center, at 601 Madison Street in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on using genetic information to optimize medical care for Veterans and to enhance development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant to Veterans.
The Committee will receive program updates and continue to provide insight into optimal ways for VA to incorporate genomic information into its health care program, while applying appropriate ethical oversight and protecting the privacy of Veterans. The meeting will focus on developing infrastructure and guidelines for genotyping and phenotyping, and translation of genomics into the clinic. The Committee will also receive an update on the status of the ongoing Million Veteran Program and the Clinical Genomics Service. The Committee will receive public comments at 3:30 p.m. Public comments will not exceed 5 minutes each. Individuals who wish to speak may submit a 1–2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record to Dr. Sumitra Muralidhar, Designated Federal Officer, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
In rule document 2014–04105, appearing on pages 12273–12300 in the issue of Tuesday, March 4, 2014, make the following correction: