Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
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.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 23, 2013, to amend conditions under which Federal employees and retirees may change enrollment under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program. This is the final rule.
This rule is effective August 15, 2014.
Michael W. Kaszynski, Senior Policy Analyst at
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to change some of the requirements for Federal employees and retirees to make enrollment changes under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). These expanded enrollment opportunities are intended to better align FEDVIP with specific Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) qualifying life events (QLE). We received no comments on the regulation. The new enrollment opportunities will allow FEDVIP enrollees to make enrollment changes when they get married or return to work after certain periods of leave without pay. FEDVIP enrollees will now be able to enroll or change plans or options when they experience these life events. Previously, enrollees had to wait until the annual Open Season event to make these changes. This better aligns these enrollment opportunities under both the FEDVIP and the FEHB Programs.
The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 provided OPM the opportunity to establish arrangements under which supplemental dental and vision benefits were made available to Federal employees, retirees, and their family members.
FEDVIP is available to eligible Federal and Postal employees, retirees, and their eligible family members on an enrollee-pay-all basis. This program allows dental and vision insurance to be purchased on a group basis with competitive premiums and no pre-existing condition limitations for enrollment. Premiums for enrolled Federal and Postal employees are withheld from salary on a pre-tax basis.
OPM has examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs 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). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule is not considered a major rule because there will be a minimal impact on costs to Federal agencies.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only adds flexibility to the current enrollment process.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employee benefit plans, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR Part 894 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8962; 5 U.S.C. 8992; Subpart C also issued under section 1 of Pub. L. 110–279, 122 Stat. 2604.
(c) Within 60 days of when you return to service following a break in service of at least 30 days;
(d) From 31 days before you or an eligible family member loses other dental/vision coverage to 60 days after a QLE that allows you to enroll;
(e) From 31 days before you get married to 60 days after; or
(f) Within 60 days after returning to Federal employment after being on leave without pay if you did not have Federal dental or vision coverage prior to going on leave without pay, or your coverage was terminated or canceled during your period of leave without pay.
(b) Your annuity or compensation is restored after having been terminated;
(c) You return to pay status after being on leave without pay due to deployment to active military duty;
(d) You get married; or
(e) You return to Federal employment after being on leave without pay if you did not have Federal dental or vision coverage prior to going on leave without pay, or your coverage was terminated or canceled during your period of leave without pay.
(a) You may change from one dental and/or vision plan to another plan or one plan option to another option in that same plan during the annual open season, when you get married, or when you return to Federal employment after being on leave without pay if you did not have Federal dental or vision coverage prior to going on leave without pay, or your coverage was terminated or canceled during your period of leave without pay.
(e) You may not change from one dental or vision plan to another, except as stated in § 894.507.
United States Department of Agriculture.
Final rule.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) is amending its regulation on nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department. The changes clarifies the roles and responsibilities of USDA's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) and USDA agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department and strengthens USDA's civil rights compliance and complaint processing activities to better protect the rights of USDA customers. OASCR's compliance activities are detailed, and a requirement is included that each agency shall, for civil rights compliance purposes, collect, maintain and annually compile data on the race, ethnicity, and gender (REG) of all conducted program applicants and participants by county and State. Applicants and program participants will provide the race, ethnicity, and gender data on a voluntary basis. The amendment also provides that OASCR shall offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services to complainants where appropriate. This amendment is intended to encourage the early resolution of customer complaints. Finally, USDA is amending its regulation to add protection from discrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department with respect to two new protected bases, political beliefs, and gender identity. The Secretary has decided to establish gender identity as a separate protected basis for USDA's conducted programs and activities. This amendment is meant to make explicit protections against discrimination based on USDA program customers' political beliefs or gender identity. Gender identity includes USDA program customers' gender expression, including how USDA program customers act, dress, perceive themselves, or otherwise express their gender.
Effective July 16, 2014.
Anna Stroman at 202–205–5953 or
This rule follows the USDA proposed rule published on December 27, 2013, (78 FR 78788–249). The USDA is amending its regulation on nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department. In 1964, USDA adopted Title VI principles to its federally conducted activities by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. (See 29 FR 16966, creating 7 CFR part 15, subpart b, referring to nondiscrimination in direct USDA programs and activities, now found at 7 CFR part 15d). Subsequently, USDA expanded the protected bases for its conducted programs to include religion, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, disability, and whether any portion of a person's income is derived from public assistance programs. The intention is to hold the Department to a higher standard than our recipients.
The regulation was last revised in 1999 (64 FR 66709, Nov. 30, 1999). The changes will clarify the roles and responsibilities of OASCR and USDA agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department (“conducted programs”) and strengthen USDA's civil rights compliance and complaint processing activities to better protect the rights of USDA customers. This regulation does not address those programs for which the Department provides Federal financial assistance
The final regulation outlines three specific changes to current activities. First, the final regulation includes a requirement that each agency shall, for civil rights compliance purposes, collect, maintain, and annually compile data on the race, ethnicity, and gender of all applicants and participants of programs and activities conducted by USDA by county and State. Applicants and program participants of these programs will provide this data on a voluntary basis. Although USDA first established a policy for collecting data on race, ethnicity, and gender in 1969, there is currently no uniform requirement for reporting and tabulating this data across USDA's diverse program areas. The three USDA agencies that administer the majority of USDA's conducted programs—the Farm Services Agency (FSA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Forest Service (FS) and Rural Development (RD)—already collect this data from individuals. FSA, NRCS, and RD (the “field based agencies”) collect this data under the requirements of section 14006 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill), which requires collection of this data for each program that serves agricultural producers and landowners. This data allows USDA to track application and participation rates for socially disadvantaged and limited resources applicants and participants. Together, these four agencies capture more than 90 percent of the contacts USDA has with the public through its conducted programs. This final regulation will standardize the recordkeeping requirement across the Department to all programs conducted by USDA that deliver benefits to the
Second, the rule requires that OASCR offer ADR services to complainants where appropriate. This amendment is intended to encourage the early resolution of customer complaints and is in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture's Blueprint for Stronger Service. Offering ADR will expand the use of techniques currently used in the employment context that facilitate complaint resolution and shorten resolution time. It will provide a cost-effective opportunity for early complaint resolution. USDA anticipates that this measure will reduce costs associated with complaint processing while also enhancing customer experience with the Department.
Finally, USDA is amending its regulation to add protection from discrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department with respect to two new protected bases, political beliefs and gender identity. Discrimination by USDA employees on these grounds is already prohibited in USDA's statement on civil rights. This amendment is meant to make explicit protections against discrimination based on USDA program customers' political beliefs or gender identity, which will strengthen USDA's ability to ensure that all USDA customers receive fair and consistent treatment, and align the regulations with USDA's civil rights goals.
The inclusion of political beliefs will prohibit discrimination consistent with the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Public Law 88–525, 78 Stat. 703–709 (Aug. 31, 1964), the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (which covers political affiliation), and the Secretary of Agriculture's civil rights policy statements.
The Secretary has decided to establish gender identity as a separate protected basis for USDA's conducted programs and activities. For the purpose of this regulation, gender identity includes USDA program customers' gender expression, including how USA program customers act, dress, perceive themselves, or otherwise express their gender.
The change allows USDA customers of conducted programs who believe that they have been discriminated against on the basis of political beliefs or gender identity to take advantage of USDA's existing mechanisms to file an administrative complaint and receive a response. USDA's response might include recommending additional training for USDA employees or outreach in appropriate cases, procedures which already take place and can continue to take place within existing resources. The change applies only to USDA's internal administrative complaint mechanism and does not, in and of itself, create any new legal rights to bring suit against USDA, or expand the class of cases where USDA is authorized to pay money in connection with civil rights complaints.
On December 27, 2013, USDA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Comment: We received two comments submitted on behalf of seven organizations requesting that the proposed regulation require USDA agencies to make race, ethnic and gender (REG) data collected under the proposed regulation available to the public. Commenters recommended public disclosure of the data, along with civil rights compliance reviews, to enhance the effectiveness of the regulation and to ensure agency accountability.
Response: OASCR agrees that public disclosure of the data will provide customers with additional information on the effectiveness of USDA's conducted programs as well as increase its accountability to its customers. As each Agency is required to submit to OASCR timely, complete and accurate program application and participation reports containing the REG data on an annual basis, one option that OASCR is considering, upon completion of its analysis of this data, would be to post a summary analysis on either the USDA or OASCR Web site. In addition, Agencies will also have the option of posting their data on their Web sites. In regards to the recommendation that compliance reviews be subject to public disclosure, OASCR will take this under consideration.
Comment: We received two comments submitted on behalf of seven organizations recommending that the regulation requires USDA to take steps to ensure the accurate reporting of data, especially for those who do not receive the assistance requested.
Response: We agree that USDA should take steps to ensure the accurate reporting of data. Data on programs must be analyzed in a consistent manner with respect to the protected categories. The regulation provides for the standard, voluntary collection of REG data for all USDA conducted programs. Standard demographic program data will help USDA better determine if programs and services are reaching the needs of all conducted program applicants and participants by county and State. USDA anticipates that this expanded data collection will provide additional data regarding customers who are and are not receiving USDA benefits, improve the design of USDA programs, and ultimately reduce the number of complaints of discrimination filed against USDA. The uniform collection of REG data will allow USDA to administer programs from a proactive rather than a reactive position and enables the Department to assess the accomplishment of program delivery mandates and objectives. Moreover, when allegations of disparate treatment or service arise, accurate REG data provides USDA the ability to determine the validity of discrimination complaints and resolve conflicts and issues in an expeditious manner. USDA's use of standardized voluntary methods of data collection will ensure the accuracy of data reporting for all protected categories of program applicants and participants, which will include those who apply for, but do not receive the requested assistance.
Comment: We received one comment opposing the collection of REG data from the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan (B&I) Program of USDA's Rural Development (RD) Mission Area on the grounds that B&I works with private lenders and has only paperwork interaction with borrower applicants. B&I cannot identify borrower applicants by race, religion, gender, etc. and the collection of REG data would create an additional step in the loan process and therefore be unduly difficult and burdensome. Further, the commenter stated that B&I is already prohibited by law from discriminating against applicants on the grounds identified in the proposed regulation.
Response: The regulation applies only to USDA “conducted” programs and only those agencies administering USDA conducted programs that serve individuals are required to collect the data. B&I is a loan guarantee program, guaranteeing loans provided by private lenders. B&I is not an RD conducted program and therefore the proposed regulation is not applicable to B&I.
Comment: We received one comment submitted on behalf of six organizations requesting that the rule require agencies
Response: Although USDA first established a policy for collecting data on REG in 1969, there is currently no uniform requirement for reporting and tabulating this data across USDA's diverse program areas. The rule requires that each USDA agency collect, maintain, and annually compile data on REG of all program applicants and participants of conducted programs by county and State. This will create a standard collection of data on REG from applicants and beneficiaries of USDA conducted programs. However, USDA agencies are not required to collect data on the language preferences of customers.
Although collecting data on the languages spoken by customers is outside the scope of this regulation, USDA has established its Departmental Regulation on the prohibition of national origin discrimination against persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in conducted programs. In addition, USDA is in the process of finalizing its guidance on the prohibition of national origin discrimination against persons with LEP in its federally assisted programs. USDA conducted programs will not be required to collect data on language preference but will perform an assessment of the number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or encountered and the frequency of encounters.
With regard to the collection of ethnicity data, the rule requires USDA agencies with conducted programs to develop strategies for collecting REG data for their respective federally conducted programs. These strategies will be reviewed and approved by OASCR and will be established per the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) requirements for data collection on race and ethnicity, Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. While we agree that expanding the ethnicity categories beyond Hispanic or Latino would provide valuable information regarding the customers participating in and receiving benefits from programs conducted by the Department, USDA is working within the parameters of the approved OMB form. In the future, we will be looking into revising our data collection options to capture all ethnic groups by allowing customers to self-identify ethnic categories.
Comment: We received two comments on behalf of seven organizations recommending that USDA take steps to monitor compliance with data reporting requirements by the agencies.
Response: We agree that USDA should closely monitor compliance with the regulation's data collection and reporting requirements. OASCR's compliance responsibilities include ensuring that each agency collects, maintains, and annually compiles data on the REG of all program applicants and participants by county and State. OASCR will be closely monitoring and reviewing agencies data reporting for compliance on an annual basis.
Comment: We received one comment on behalf of six organizations recommending USDA more explicitly state how the collected data will be used to proactively inform strategies to address any identified inequities.
Response: The rule requires that each USDA agency collect, maintain, and annually compile data on the race, ethnicity, and gender of all conducted program applicants and participants by county and State.
Demographic data collected under the regulation can be used to: (1) Perform analyses during the investigation of civil rights complaints to determine whether discrimination exists; (2) conduct mandated civil rights compliance reviews; (3) compare data from the Agriculture Census or decennial census on whether groups or communities are underserved by USDA's programs; (4) determine targeted areas for product development, marketing, and outreach; (5) customize communication for improved customer service; (6) measure the participation rates of traditionally underserved groups, such as racial/ethnic minorities, women, older farmers, and persons with disabilities, and make adjustments, as necessary, in product development and/or program delivery; and (7) measure performance of USDA personnel. Also USDA anticipates that this expanded data collection will include data regarding customers who are and are not receiving USDA benefits, will help improve the design of USDA programs, and ultimately will reduce the number of complaints of discrimination filed against USDA.
Comment: We received one comment on behalf of six organizations recommending that USDA take additional steps to assure that the purposes of the proposed regulation are realized, which includes improved processing of complaints, an improved process for documenting settlement agreements, and compiled data on complaints after an investigation.
Response: OASCR is responsible for monitoring and providing oversight of the implementation of the rule and will be reviewing the data collected on an annual basis to ensure that the purposes of the rule are met. We believe that the steps provided by the rule will effectively address the concerns of the commenter. This will strengthen USDA's civil rights compliance and complaint processing activities at all stages, and the ADR requirement will improve the process of documenting settlement agreements. Further, as OASCR's monitors and oversees the implementation of the proposed regulation, assessments can be made as to whether further steps are necessary to improve the realization of its purpose.
Comment: We received eighteen comments submitted on behalf of thirty organizations recommending that USDA train its employees to fully implement the proposed regulation.
Response: In order for the Department to enforce nondiscrimination in programs and activities conducted by the Department and to ensure requirements of the regulation are met by USDA agencies, OASCR and the agencies will provide training on the rule's requirements. OASCR has begun to prepare its training strategy for managers, employees, and program customers. Training is expected to begin once the rule is finalized.
Comment: We received one comment submitted on behalf of seventeen organizations requesting that the Department list the programs and activities conducted by the USDA that are covered by the proposed rule.
Response: This rule covers all programs and activities conducted by the Department. It does not cover programs or activities for which the Department provides Federal financial assistance through a third party such as a State or municipal government, university, or other intermediary organization. The name, number, and nature of programs and activities
Comment: We received one comment submitted on behalf of six organizations seeking clarification regarding the implementation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services for program complaints. Specifically, (1) whether ADR is required; (2) how ADR will be used; and (3) what, if any, changes will the amendment make to current ADR services.
Response: The amendment provides that OASCR shall offer ADR services to complainants where appropriate. ADR for program complaints is a service that offers mediation and other current ADR techniques presently provided for Equal Employment Opportunity cases. ADR will be used to facilitate the early resolution of disputed issues and complaints through mediation, facilitation, fact finding, arbitration, use of ombudsman, or any combination thereof. Participation in ADR is not mandatory for customers of USDA's conducted programs, but rather it is an optional service available to customers at no cost. By engaging in ADR, customers do not give up their right to file a complaint.
Comment: We received two comments from two organizations, each recommending that USDA add another protected basis: One comment recommended the addition of “marital status,” and one comment recommended the addition of “sexual orientation.”
Response: The Secretary's Civil Rights Policy Statement, dated July 24, 2013, 7 CFR 15d.3, includes “marital status” and “sexual orientation,” as bases for protection from discrimination. The rule adds two additional bases, namely “gender identity” and “political beliefs” as protected categories for its conducted programs.
Comment: We received eighteen comments on behalf of thirty-seven organizations recommending that USDA expand nondiscrimination protection on the basis of “gender identity” and “political beliefs” to USDA assisted programs, in particular nutrition programs. One commenter also recommended that nondiscrimination protection be extended to housing assistance programs.
Response: OASCR is currently researching its nondiscrimination regulation for its federally assisted programs. However, the current rule only addresses nondiscrimination protection for USDA “conducted” programs and activities.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, OMB was not required to review this final rule.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
7 CFR part 15d clarifies the roles and responsibilities of USDA's OASCR and USDA agencies in enforcing nondiscrimination in programs or activities conducted by the Department. The final regulation was last revised in 1999 (64 FR 66709, Nov. 30, 1999). The changes also strengthen USDA's civil rights compliance and complaint processing activities to better protect the rights of USDA customers. As stated previously, the proposed data collection is in line with the requirements of section 14006 of the 2008 Farm Bill. The inclusion of political beliefs as a protected basis will prohibit discrimination in accordance with current civil rights laws, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Public Law 88–525, 78 Stat. 703–709 (Aug. 31, 1964) and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (which covers political affiliation) and the Secretary of Agriculture's civil rights policy statements.
The final rule may affect entities such as grocery and related product merchant wholesalers, establishments that export their goods on their own account that fall into category 4244 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Merchant wholesale establishments typically maintain their own warehouse, where they receive and handle goods for their customers. Goods are generally sold without transformation but may include integral functions, such as sorting, packaging, labeling, and other marketing services.
For the purpose of this analysis and following the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, the potentially affected entities are classified within the following industries: General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424410), Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424420), Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424430), Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424440), Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424450), Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424460), Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424470), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424480), Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424490).
Establishments in the categories listed above are considered small by SBA standards if their employee base is less than 100 employees. According to the U.S. Census data, there are 46,272 grocery and related product merchant wholesalers that are considered small.
Based on USDA program data, it is expected that the proposed data collection requirements on those who apply for, participate in, or receive benefits from various conducted programs may affect 90 participants which fall in the above cited categories.
The offer of ADR to program customers is not expected to have an adverse impact on small businesses. ADR will reduce the number of complaints filed, thereby reducing costs to the agency.
The inclusion of political beliefs and gender identity as protected bases is also not expected to have any adverse effect on small businesses. The Secretary has decided to establish gender identity as a separate protected basis for USDA's conducted programs
USDA considered the alternative of allowing civil rights regulations to remain the same, which will not clarify, update or add civil rights requirements. Without this rule, no additional assurances of civil rights protections will be realized.
Based on the above discussion, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. USDA invited comments from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact, and requested information to better inform the analysis of benefits and costs. No comments were received from the public indicating concern that the rule would economically impact small entities.
The 2008 Farm Bill, Section 14006 requires the collection of application and participation rate data regarding socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. OMB has approved a form for this data collection, and the field based agencies have already implemented it. This existing data collection already meets the requirements proposed in this rule, and therefore, the final rule imposes no new data collection requirements on the three field based agencies and will not cause duplication or conflict with the 2008 Farm Bill requirements. USDA is unaware of any other Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the final rule.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This rule neither provides Federal financial assistance nor direct Federal development. It does not provide either grants or cooperative agreements. Therefore, this program is not subject to Executive Order 12372.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule would not preempt State and or local laws, and regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.
This rule has been reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments.” The review reveals that this rule will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal Governments and will not have significant Tribal implications. OASCR consulted with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) in development of the proposed rule and believes that it will not impact or have direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications. OASCR continues to consult with USDA's OTR to collaborate meaningfully to develop and strengthen departmental regulations.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)(Pub. L. 104–4) requires Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal Governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. The UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandate as defined by Title II of UMRA for State, local, or Tribal governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
OASCR is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, which requires Government Agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
Civil rights.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, USDA proposes to amend 7 CFR part 15d as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301.
For the purpose of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a) No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or gender identity, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
(b) No person shall be subjected to reprisal for opposing any practice(s) prohibited by this part, for filing a complaint, or for participating in any other manner in a proceeding under this part.
(a)
(1) OASCR shall oversee the compliance reviews and evaluations, and issue compliance reports that monitor compliance efforts to ensure that there is equitable and fair treatment in conducted programs.
(2) OASCR shall monitor all settlement agreements pertaining to program complaints for compliance to ensure full implementation and enforcement.
(3) OASCR shall oversee Agency Head Assessments to ensure that Agency Heads are in compliance with civil rights laws and regulations.
(4) OASCR shall monitor all findings of non-compliance to ensure that compliance is achieved.
(5) OASCR shall require agencies to collect the race, ethnicity and gender of applicants and program participants, who choose to provide such information on a voluntary basis, in USDA-conducted programs, for purposes of civil rights compliance oversight, and evaluation.
(b)
(i) Numbers of applicants and participants by race, ethnicity, and gender, subject to appropriate privacy protections, as determined by the Secretary and in accordance with law; and
(ii) The application and participation rate, by race, ethnicity, and gender, as a percentage of the total participation rate.
(2) Each Agency shall submit to the OASCR timely, complete and accurate program application and participation reports containing the information described in § 15d.4(b)(1), on an annual basis, and upon the request of the OASCR independently of the annual requirement.
(c)
(a) Any person who believes that he or she (or any specific class of individuals) has been, or is being, subjected to practices prohibited by this part may file (or file through an authorized representative) a written complaint alleging such discrimination. The written complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days from the date the person knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged discrimination, unless the time is extended for good cause by the ASCR or designee. Any person who complains of discrimination under this part in any fashion shall be advised of the right to file a complaint as herein provided.
(b) All complaints under this part should be filed with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, who will investigate the complaints. The ASCR will make final determinations as to the merits of complaints under this part and as to the corrective actions required to resolve program complaints. The complainant will be notified of the final determination on the complaint.
(c) Any complaint filed under this part alleging discrimination on the basis of disability will be processed under 7 CFR part 15e.
(d) For complaints OASCR deems appropriate for ADR, OASCR shall offer ADR services to complainants.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that relaxed the minimum size prescribed for oranges under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order) and the orange import regulation. The interim rule relaxed the minimum size requirement for domestic and import shipments from 2
Effective July 17, 2014.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order and agreement regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 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.”
This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
The handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is regulated by 7 CFR part 906. Prior to this change, the minimum size requirement for domestic shipments of oranges was 2
Imported oranges are subject to regulations specified in 7 CFR part 944. Under those regulations, imported oranges must meet the same minimum size requirements as specified for domestic oranges under the order. Therefore, the minimum size requirement was also relaxed from 2
In an interim rule published in the
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 final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of oranges in the regulated area. There are approximately 220 importers of oranges. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers and importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) 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 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the industry and Committee, the average f.o.b. price for Texas oranges during the 2012–13 season was $25.30 per box, and total fresh orange shipments were approximately 1.5 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, the majority of Texas orange handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, indicates that the dollar value of imported fresh oranges ranged from approximately $71.2 million in 2008 to $107.4 million in 2012. Using these values, most importers would have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 for oranges. Thus, the majority of handlers, producers, and importers of oranges may be classified as small entities.
Chile, South Africa, Mexico, and Australia are the major orange-producing countries exporting oranges to the United States. In 2012, shipments of oranges imported into the United States totaled around 119,000 metric tons. Of that amount, 51,510 metric tons were imported from Chile, 35,960 metric tons were imported from South Africa, 17,421 metric tons were imported from Mexico, and 11,100 metric tons arrived from Australia.
This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the minimum size requirement for oranges grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and imported oranges. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for domestic and import shipments from 2
This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order requirements or the orange import regulation. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing the size requirement makes additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes that this provides additional fruit to fill a shortage in the fresh market and provides the opportunity to fulfill a growing consumer demand for smaller sized fruit. This action also provides an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh orange growers, handlers, and importers, regardless of their size.
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. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large citrus 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. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 29, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as a final rule.
The Department of Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that exempted red types of potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements of the Washington potato marketing order and the potato import regulation for the 2013–2014 and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule also continues in effect the action that required handlers of red types of potatoes to submit reports during the period that red types of potatoes are exempt from regulation. This rule is expected to reduce overall industry expenses and increase net returns to producers and handlers while giving the industry the opportunity to explore alternative marketing strategies.
Effective July 21, 2014.
Teresa Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email:
Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, 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.”
This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including potatoes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States is prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
The handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington is regulated by 7 CFR part 946. Prior to this change, red types
Therefore, this rule continues in effect the interim rule that exempted red types of potatoes from the order's handling regulations for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule also continues in effect the action that required handlers of red types of potatoes to submit reports during the period that red types of potatoes are exempt from regulation. Assessments on all fresh red types of potatoes handled under the order will remain in effect during the exemption period.
Imported potatoes are subject to regulations specified in 7 CFR part 980. Under those regulations, imported potatoes must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements as specified for domestic potatoes under the order. Therefore, the exemption of red types of potatoes from the minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements of the order also exempts red-skinned, round types of potatoes imported into the United States from the same requirements.
In an interim rule published in the
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 final 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 43 handlers of Washington potatoes subject to regulation under the order and approximately 267 producers in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration 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. (13 CFR 121.201)
For the 2011–2012 marketing year, the Committee reports that 11,018,670 hundredweight of Washington potatoes were shipped into the fresh market. Based on average f.o.b. prices estimated by the USDA's Economic Research Service and Committee data on individual handler shipments, the Committee estimates that 42, or approximately 98 percent of the handlers, had annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.
In addition, based on information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average producer price for Washington potatoes for 2011–2012 was $7.90 per hundredweight. Taking the 2011–2012 shipments of fresh potatoes in the marketing order area (11,018,670 hundredweight), multiplying it by the average producer price for Washington potatoes, $7.90, and then dividing it by the number of Washington potato producers (267) equates to an average gross annual revenue per producer of approximately $326,021. In view of the foregoing, the majority of Washington potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
Information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, indicates that the dollar value of imported fresh potatoes averaged $128.962 million from 2008 to 2012, ranging from a low of approximately $106.502 million in 2012 to a high of approximately $155.358 million in 2008. Taking the average dollar value of imported fresh potatoes, $128.962 million, and dividing it by the number of potato importers, 571, results in average annual receipts per importer of approximately $226,000. Since this is below the SBA definition for small businesses (less than $7 million in annual sales), most potato importers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that exempted red types of potatoes from the order's handling regulations and modified the order's reporting requirements for the remainder of the 2013–2014 fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. This rule also continues in effect the action that exempted imported red-skinned, round type potatoes from the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, and inspection requirements of the potato import regulation. This change is expected to reduce overall industry expenses and provide the industry with the opportunity to explore alternative marketing strategies.
This rule modifies §§ 946.143, 946.336, and 980.1. Authority for the change in the order's rules and regulations is provided in § 946.52 of the order, while authority for reports and records is provided in § 946.70. The change in the potato import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.
This rule is not anticipated to negatively impact small businesses. This rule exempts red types of potatoes from minimum quality, maturity, pack, marking, and inspection requirements for the remainder of the current fiscal period and subsequent fiscal periods. Though inspections are not mandatory for such potatoes during the exemption period, handlers may choose to voluntarily have their potatoes inspected. Handlers are thus able to control costs based on the demands of their customers. The opportunities and benefits of this rule are equally available to all Washington potato handlers and producers, regardless of their size.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops.
This rule continues in effect the action requiring the submission of a monthly handler report for fresh red types of potatoes handled during the exemption period. The action modified the “Russet Fresh Potato Report” that was previously established for reporting the handling of russet type potatoes to now include red types of potatoes during the period those types of potatoes are exempted from regulation. The modified form, now titled the “Self-Reporting Potato Form,” will provide the Committee with information necessary to track shipments and collect
While this rule continues in effect the action requiring a reporting requirement for red types of potatoes, the exemption of red types of potatoes from handling regulation also eliminates, for the exemption period, the more frequent reporting requirements imposed under the order's special purpose shipment exemptions (§ 946.336(d) and (e)). Under these paragraphs, handlers are required to provide detailed reports whenever they divert regulated potatoes for livestock feed, charity, seed, prepeeling, processing, grading and storing in specified counties in Oregon, and experimentation.
Therefore, any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers of red types of potatoes are expected to be offset by the elimination of the other reporting requirements currently in effect. In addition, the exemption from handling regulation and inspection requirements for red types of potatoes is expected to reduce industry expenses.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited to participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the May 9, July 16, and December 10, 2013, meetings were public meetings. All entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 14, 2014. No comments were received. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the interim rule, USDA is adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Food grades and standards, Imports, Marketing agreements, Onions, Potatoes, Tomatoes.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule revises the rules and regulations of the California date marketing order (order) to impose interest and late payment charges on overdue handler assessments. The order regulates the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, and is administered locally by the California Date Administrative Committee (committee). Assessments upon date handlers are used to fund the reasonable and necessary expenses of the committee. These changes are expected to assist in the financial administration of the order by encouraging handlers to pay their assessments in a timely manner.
Effective July 17, 2014.
Terry Vawter, Senior 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 final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 987, as amended (7 CFR Part 987), regulating the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, 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 rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This 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. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This final rule revises the rules and regulations of the California date order to impose interest and late payment charges on overdue handler assessments. Interest and late payment charges will encourage California date handlers to pay their assessments promptly when billed by the committee.
The order was amended on June 25, 2012, [77 FR 37762], to provide authority for the committee to recommend these actions, thereby permitting these changes through informal rulemaking, with the approval of the Secretary.
Section 987.72 of the order establishes the authority for the committee to collect assessments from handlers. Paragraph (b) of that section specifically authorizes the committee to establish rules and regulations regarding delinquent assessment payments, including subjecting overdue assessments to an interest or late payment charge, or both; and authorizes the committee to recommend to USDA the period of time at which assessments become late, the rate of interest, and the late payment charge to be imposed on such delinquent assessments.
The California date industry is a small industry with 70 producers and 11 handlers. If a handler withholds an assessment payment, it has an impact on the committee's ability to administer the order. The committee believes that charging interest and late payment fees will provide a greater incentive for handlers to make assessment payments on time. This in turn, will help ensure that the committee is able to meet its financial obligations and fund its programs on a continuing basis.
Charging interest and late payment fees on unpaid financial obligations is commonplace in the business world, and such charges bring the committee's financial operations in line with standard business practices. Such charges remove any financial advantage for those who do not pay on time while they benefit from committee programs, thus, creating a more level playing field for the industry.
For those reasons, the committee unanimously recommended an interest rate of 1.5 percent per month, a late payment charge of 10 percent on the unpaid balance, and specified that assessment payments become overdue at 60 days after the date on the assessment invoice. This recommendation was made at a committee meeting on October 31, 2013. Based upon the above considerations, this rule will implement interest and late payment charges for delinquent payment of assessments.
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 rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 70 date producers in the production area and 11 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), data for the most recently completed crop year (2012) show that about 3.70 tons, or 7,400 pounds of dates were produced per acre. The 2012 grower price published by NASS was $1,340 per ton or $0.67 per pound. Thus, the value of date production per acre in the 2012–13 crop year averaged about $4,958 (7,400 pounds times $0.67 per pound). At that average price, a producer would have to farm over 151 acres to receive an annual income from dates of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $4,958 per acre equals 151.2 acres). According to committee staff, the majority of California date producers farm less than 151 acres. Therefore, it can be concluded that the majority of date producers could be considered small entities.
Additionally, based on data from the committee staff, the majority of California date handlers have receipts of less than $7,000,000, and may also be considered small entities.
This final rule imposes an interest charge of 1.5 percent monthly, and a late payment charge of 10 percent on the unpaid balance of handler assessments owed to the committee 60 days after the date on the assessment invoice.
At the meeting, the committee discussed the impact of these changes on handlers. They noted that the greatest impact would be only on handlers who do not pay their assessments on time. Such charges provide an incentive for all handlers to pay their assessments in a timely manner.
The committee also discussed alternatives to these changes including not implementing them at all. It was determined that not implementing interest and late payment charges allows the current problem to continue. Late or delinquent assessment payments negatively impact the committee's ability to efficiently manage the program's resources and meet budget obligations. The committee concluded that encouraging timely assessment payment through the imposition of interest and late payment charges will benefit the administration of the order. Thus, the committee unanimously recommended these changes.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, “Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.” 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 action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Riverside County, California, date 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 rule.
In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California date industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the October 31, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
(b) Pursuant to § 987.72, the committee shall impose an interest charge on any handler whose assessment payment has not been received in the committee's office, or the envelope containing the payment legibly postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service, within 60 days of the invoice date shown on the handler's statement. The interest charge shall be a rate of one and one half percent per month, and shall be applied to the unpaid assessment balance for the number of days all or any part of the unpaid balance is delinquent beyond the 60-day payment period.
(c) In addition to the interest charge specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the committee shall impose a late payment charge on any handler whose payment has not been received in the committee's office, or the envelope containing the payment legibly postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service, within 60 days of the invoice date. The late payment charge shall be 10 percent of the unpaid balance.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Correcting amendments.
On April 21, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the
This correction is effective July 16, 2014.
Mr. Lucas Adin, 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) 287–1317. Email:
Mr. 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:
On April 21, 2014, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published a test procedure final rule in the
As published, the adopted test procedure text may result in confusion due to the incorrect reference in Appendix A and the incorrect formula in Appendix B. Because this final rule would simply correct errors in the text without making substantive changes to the test procedures, the changes addressed in this document are technical in nature. Accordingly, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the April 21, 2014 test procedure final rule remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the April 21, 2014 final rule. 79 FR at 22345–22348.
In FR Doc. 2014–08644, published on April 21, 2014 (79 FR 22320), on page 22320, in the second column, in the Supplementary Information section,
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE corrects 10 CFR part 430 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology and design envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of a stowage compartment in the lavatory. The isolation of this stowage compartment from the main cabin could hinder the ability of the flight crew to detect a fire. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Robert C. Jones, FAA, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM–112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1234; facsimile (425) 227–1149.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for its new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The airplane has a configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell AS907–3–1E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–127.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB–550 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB–550 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A stowage compartment, designed to store passenger belongings, located in the lavatory. The stowage compartment may be isolated from the main passenger cabin by two doors (lavatory and stowage compartment doors), which could hinder the ability to detect smoke or fire. The installation of a stowage compartment in the lavatory is a novel and unusual design feature for which the applicable airworthiness
Embraer did not classify the EMB–550 stowage compartment in the aft part of the pressurized area as a Class B cargo compartment due to its relatively small volume of 37 cubic feet. The compartment has a door that is intended to be closed in all phases of flight but can be opened to allow passenger access during flight. The lavatory door must be kept open for takeoff and landing but will likely be kept closed in all other phases of flight.
Due to the facts that the stowage compartment is not classified as a Class B cargo compartment and may be isolated from the main cabin by two doors during flight, and considering that it will be used to store passenger belongings, existing requirements for stowage compartments are not adequate to address fire protection concerns. The isolation characteristics and the possibility of storing items that may start a fire create the potential for an undetected fire event.
Additional safety precautions are required to avoid a situation where a fire condition remains undetected in an isolated stowage compartment. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25–14–02–SC for the Embraer Model EMB–550 airplane was published in the
The commenter suggested we include both “smoke” and “fire” in paragraph 1a of the special conditions, as both terms are used in the referenced regulation. We agree and have incorporated the proposed changes accordingly. We historically have used smoke and fire synonymously and believe that it remains appropriate.
The commenter also suggested the special conditions include the amendment level for § 25.858. We agree and have incorporated this comment.
The commenter suggested that the special condition only require the annunciation be provided to the flight crew, in order to be consistent with § 25.858. We agree that the requirement should be consistent with § 25.858, and have removed the flight deck indication text and simply required the system meet § 25.858.
The commenter also recommended that the special conditions require the indication to the flight deck be provided within one minute, in order to be consistent with § 25.858. In discussions with the applicant all parties agreed to the need to detect a fire within 60 seconds per the current § 25.858 as referenced. With the change to simply require the system meet § 25.858 noted above, it would be redundant to include the 60-second detection time in the special conditions.
In the second comment, the commenter suggested text changes to remove any ambiguity over whether protective breathing equipment would be required. We agree that the proposed text is clearer and have incorporated the proposed changes accordingly.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer Model EMB–550. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550.
1.
a. A means for smoke or fire detection that meets the provisions of § 25.858 at Amendment 25.93 is required regardless of the fact that the compartment is not classified as a cargo compartment per § 25.857 (only a “stowage” compartment).
b. In addition to the requirements of § 25.851, at least one hand-held or manually-activated compartment fire extinguisher appropriate to the kinds of fires likely to occur must be provided for the lavatory. If a hand-held fire extinguisher is provided, then protective breathing equipment must be provided with the extinguisher.
c. Sufficient access must be provided to enable a crew member to effectively reach any part of the stowage compartment with the content of a hand-held fire extinguisher.
d. When the access provisions are being used, no hazardous quantity of smoke, flames, or extinguishing agent will enter any compartment occupied by the crew or passengers.
e. A liner must be provided that meets the requirements of § 25.855 at Amendment 25–60 for a Class B cargo compartment unless it can be shown that the material used to construct the stowage compartment meets the flammability requirements by a 60-second vertical test in lieu of 12-second vertical test and by presenting past test results of typical panels that meet the 45-degree flame penetration test.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions, the loss of which could be catastrophic to the airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is July 16, 2014. We must receive your comments by August 15, 2014.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–0100 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2315; facsimile 425–227–1149.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for its new Model EMB–550 airplane. The Model EMB–550 airplane is the first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight, fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The airplane has a configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB–550 airplane is designed for eight (8) passengers, with a maximum of twelve (12) passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell AS907–3–1E medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB–550 meets the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended through Amendments 25–1 through 25–127 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB–550 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB–550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92 574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Model EMB–550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions. Examples of these systems include the electronic displays, electronic flight controls, and electronic engine controls.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The Model EMB–550 incorporates an electronic flight control system that requires a continuous source of electrical power in order to keep the system operable. The criticality of this system is such that its failure will either reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions, or prevent continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate standards for protection of these systems from the adverse effects of operation without normal electrical power.
The current rule, § 25.1351(d), Amendment 25–72, requires safe operation under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions for at least five minutes after loss of all normal electrical power. This rule was structured around traditional airplane designs that used mechanical control cables and linkages for flight control. These manual controls allowed the crew to maintain aerodynamic control of the airplane for an indefinite period of time after loss of all electrical power. Under these conditions, the
To maintain the same level of safety associated with traditional designs, the Model EMB–550 must be designed for operation with the normal sources of engine and auxiliary power unit (APU)-generated electrical power inoperative. Service experience has shown that loss of all electrical power from the airplane's engine and APU-driven generators is not extremely improbable. Thus, Embraer must demonstrate that the airplane is capable of recovering adequate primary electrical power generation for safe flight and landing.
The emergency electrical power system must be designed to supply:
1. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss of the normal engine (which includes APU power) generator electrical power system;
2. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing; and
3. Electrical power required to restart the engines.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Embraer S.A. Model EMB–550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one airplane model. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
In lieu of 14 CFR 25.1351(d) the following special conditions apply to ensure that the airplane has sufficient electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.
1. The applicant must show by test or a combination of test and analysis that the airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing with all normal electrical power sources inoperative, as prescribed by paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) below.
For purposes of these special conditions, normal sources of electrical-power generation do not include any alternate power sources such as a battery, ram-air turbine (RAT), or independent power systems such as a flight-control permanent-magnet generating system.
In showing capability for continued safe flight and landing, consideration must be given to systems capability, effects on crew workload and operating conditions, and the physiological needs of the flightcrew and passengers for the longest diversion time for which approval is sought.
a. Common-cause failures, cascading failures, and zonal physical threats must be considered in showing compliance with this requirement.
b. The ability to restore operation of portions of the electrical-power generation and distribution system may be considered if it can be shown that unrecoverable loss of those portions of the system is extremely improbable. An alternative source of electrical power must be provided for the time required to restore the minimum electrical-power-generation capability required for safe flight and landing. Unrecoverable loss of all engines may be excluded when showing that unrecoverable loss of critical portions of the electrical system is extremely improbable. Unrecoverable loss of all engines is covered in special condition 2, below, and thus may be excluded when showing compliance with this requirement.
2. Regardless of any electrical-generation and distribution-system recovery capability shown under special condition 1, above, sufficient electrical-system capability must be provided to:
a. Allow time to descend, with all engines inoperative, at the speed that provides the best glide slope, from the maximum operating altitude to the altitude at which the soonest possible engine restart could be accomplished, and
b. Subsequently allow multiple start attempts of the engines and APU. This capability must be provided in addition to the electrical capability required by existing part 25 requirements related to operation with all engines inoperative.
3. The airplane emergency electrical-power system must be designed to supply:
a. Electrical power required for immediate safety, which must continue to operate without the need for crew action following the loss of the normal electrical power, for a duration sufficient to allow reconfiguration to provide a non-time-limited source of electrical power.
b. Electrical power required for continued safe flight and landing for the maximum diversion time.
4. If APU-generated electrical power is used in satisfying the requirements of these special conditions, and if reaching a suitable runway upon which to land is beyond the capacity of the battery systems, then the APU must be able to be started under any foreseeable flight condition prior to the depletion of the battery or the restoration of normal electrical power, whichever occurs first. Flight tests must demonstrate this capability at the most critical condition.
a. It must be shown that the APU will provide adequate electrical power for continued safe flight and landing.
b. The operating limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) must incorporate non-normal procedures that direct the pilot to take appropriate actions to activate the APU after loss of normal engine-driven generated electrical power.
As a part of showing compliance with these special conditions, the tests by which loss of all normal electrical power is demonstrated must also take into account the following:
1. The failure condition should be assumed to occur during night IMC, at the most critical phase of the flight, relative to the worst possible electrical-
2. After the un-restorable loss of normal engine generator power, the airplane-engine-restart capability must be provided and operations continued in IMC.
3. It should be demonstrated that the aircraft is capable of continued safe flight and landing. The length of time must be computed based on the maximum diversion-time capability for which the airplane is being certified. Consideration for airspeed reductions resulting from the associated failure or failures must be made.
4. The airplane must provide adequate indication of loss of normal electrical power to direct the pilot to the non-normal procedures, and the operating limitations section of the AFM must incorporate non-normal procedures that will direct the pilot to take appropriate actions.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Final rule.
Through this rule, HUD removes regulations for the HOPE for Homeowners Program. The statutory authority for this program expired September 30, 2011. Because these regulations are no longer operative, they are being removed by this final rule. To the extent that local programs are still ongoing under the following repealed parts, the removal of these regulations does not affect the requirements for transactions entered into when the regulations were in effect. Loans made under the HOPE for Homeowners Program that are presently insured will continue to be governed by the regulations that existed immediately before the effective date of this final rule.
Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–708–1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free at 800–877–8389.
The HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008 (title IV of Division A of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) (Pub. L. 110–289, 122 Stat. 2654, approved July 30, 2008) added a new section 257 to the National Housing Act (NHA) (12 U.S.C. 1701z–22) that established a temporary program within HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) that offered homeowners and mortgage loan holders (or servicers acting on their behalf) insurance on the refinancing of distressed mortgagors to support long-term sustainable homeownership and avoid foreclosure. Section 257 authorized FHA to refinance eligible mortgages commencing no earlier than October 1, 2008, and such authority to refinance expired on September 30, 2011. The fundamental principle behind the HOPE for Homeowners Act and the HOPE for Homeowners Program was that providing new equity for distressed homeowners may be an effective way to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
The HOPE for Homeowners Act also established a Board of Directors to administer the program. The Board is composed of the Secretary of HUD, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or their respective designees. Section 257(c)(1) of the NHA requires the Board to establish program requirements and standards for the HOPE for Homeowners Program and prescribe such regulations and provide such guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to implement such requirements and standards. Under the administration of the Board, the HOPE for Homeowners Program regulations were promulgated on October 6, 2008, at 73 FR 58418, and codified at 24 CFR part 4001.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3765, approved October 3, 2008) (EESA), specifically section 124 of EESA, amended section 257 of the NHA to provide additional flexibility and options to lenders participating in the HOPE for Homeowners Program. Among other things, section 124 of EESA authorizes upfront payments to a holder of an existing subordinate mortgage in lieu of providing the subordinate lien holder with a portion of HUD's 50 percent interest in the future appreciation of the value of the property. On January 7, 2009, at 74 FR 617, the Board published a rule to implement the changes made by EESA.
On May 20, 2009, the President signed into law the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Division A of Pub. L. 111–22, 123 Stat. 1632, approved May 20, 2009) (Helping Families Act). Section 202 of the Helping Families Act makes several amendments to section 257 of the NHA to enhance operation of the HOPE for Homeowners Program and to provide additional flexibility to participants. In addition, the Helping Families Act transferred responsibility, including rulemaking authority, for the HOPE for Homeowners Program from the Board of Directors to the Secretary of HUD. The Board of Directors would assist the program in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of HUD. With the transfer of responsibility for administration of the program from the Board of Directors to HUD, HUD promulgated new regulations for the HOPE for Homeowners Program that incorporated the changes made by EESA and the Helping Families Act. The regulations were published on January 12, 2010, at 75 FR 1686, and codified at 24 CFR part 257.
Although changes were made to the HOPE for Homeowners Program by EESA and the Helping Families Act, the expiration of the program was not altered and the authority for the HOPE for Homeowners Program expired on September 30, 2011. Accordingly, this final rule removes the regulations for the HOPE for Homeowners Program, codified in 24 CFR parts 257, 4000 and 4001. On June 10, 2011, FHA issued a mortgagee letter entitled “Termination of the HOPE for Homeowners (H4H) Program” that provided instructions to FHA-approved mortgagees on how to
Mortgages presently insured under the program will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect August 15, 2014, and the contracts of mortgage insurance will not be affected by the removal of these regulations. Accordingly, this rule amends § 200.1301 (Expiring Programs—Savings Clause) of 24 CFR part 200, subpart W (Administrative Matters) to add a new paragraph (e) to § 200.1301, which lists the parts associated with the HOPE for Homeowners Program regulations and states that any existing loan assistance, ongoing participation, or insured loans under these parts will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before August 15, 2014. In addition to this amendment, HUD amends 24 CFR part 200, subpart W, to consolidate other expired regulations with savings clauses into a single section, § 200.1301. Accordingly, HUD removes § 200.1302, which listed additional expired programs.
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. Part 10 provides, however, for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” (See 24 CFR 10.1.)
HUD finds that public notice and comment are not necessary for this rulemaking because the authority for the HOPE for Homeowners Program expired on September 30, 2011; mortgages are no longer being insured under this program; and, therefore, the regulations are no longer operative. For these reasons, HUD has determined that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of this rule in order to solicit prior public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction; nor establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Minimum property standards, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative procedures, Practice and procedure, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Loan programs, Mortgage insurance, Access to information.
Administrative procedures, Practice and procedure, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), amend title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702–1715z–21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) No new loan assistance, additional participation, or new loans are being insured under the programs listed in
(b) Any existing loan assistance, ongoing participation, or insured loans under the programs listed in this paragraph will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before October 11, 1995 (24 CFR parts 205, 209, 224–228, 240, 277, 278, 1994 edition):
(1) Part 205, Mortgage Insurance for Land Development (Title X of the National Housing Act, repealed by section 133(a) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Public Law 101–235, approved December 15, 1989).
(2) Part 209, Individual Homes; War Housing Mortgage Insurance (12 U.S.C. 1736–1743).
(3) Part 224, Armed Services Housing-Military Personnel (12 U.S.C. 1736–1746a).
(4) Part 225, Military Housing Insurance (12 U.S.C. 1748b).
(5) Part 226, Armed Services Housing-Civilian Employees (12 U.S.C. 1748h–1).
(6) Part 227, Armed Services Housing-Impacted Areas (12 U.S.C. 1478h–2).
(7) Part 228, Individual Residences; National Defense Housing Mortgage Insurance (12 U.S.C. 1750 as amended by 42 U.S.C. 1591c).
(8) Part 240, Mortgage Insurance on Loans for Fee Title Purchase (12 U.S.C. 1715z–5).
(9) Part 277, Loans for Housing for the Elderly or Handicapped (12 U.S.C. 1701q).
(10) Part 278, Mandatory Meals Program in Multifamily Rental or Cooperative Projects for the Elderly or Handicapped (12 U.S.C. 1701q).
(c) Any existing loan assistance, ongoing participation, or insured loans under the programs listed in this paragraph will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before May 11, 1996 (24 CFR parts 215, 222, and 237, 1995 edition):
(1) Part 215, Rent Supplement Payments Program (12 U.S.C. 1715f).
(2) Part 222, Service Person's Mortgage Insurance Program (12 U.S.C. 1715m).
(3) Part 237, Special Mortgage Insurance for Low and Moderate Income Families (12 U.S.C. 1715z–2).
(d) Any existing loan assistance, ongoing participation, or insured loans under the program listed in this paragraph will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before December 26, 1996 (24 CFR part 233, 1995 edition):
(1) Part 233, Experimental Housing Mortgage Insurance Program (12 U.S.C. 1715x).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Any existing loan assistance, ongoing participation, or insured loans under the program listed in this paragraph will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect as they existed immediately before August 15, 2014 (24 CFR part 257):
(1) Part 257, HOPE for Homeowners Program (12 U.S.C. 1701z–22).
(2) [Reserved]
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance concerning the allocation and apportionment of interest expense by corporations owning a 10 percent or greater interest in a partnership, as well as the allocation and apportionment of interest expense using the fair market value method. These regulations also update the interest allocation regulations to conform to the statutory changes made by section 216 of the legislation commonly referred to as the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act (EJMAA), enacted on August 10, 2010, affecting the affiliation of certain foreign corporations for purposes of section 864(e). These regulations affect taxpayers that allocate and apportion interest expense.
Jeffrey L. Parry, (202) 317–6936 (not a toll-free number).
On September 14, 1988, a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and temporary regulations (TD 8228) under section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) (the 1988 temporary regulations) were published in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f), the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation
The principal author of these regulations is Jeffrey L. Parry of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.861–9T(a) through (e)(1).
(2)
(3)
(e)(4) through (f)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.861–9T(e)(4) through (f)(3)(i).
(f)(5) through (h)(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.861–9T(f)(5) through (h)(3).
(h)(4)
(ii)
(A) The portion of the value of intangible assets of the taxpayer and related persons that is apportioned to such related person under § 1.861–9T(h)(2);
(B) The taxpayer's pro rata share of tangible assets held by the related person (as determined under § 1.861–9T(h)(1)(ii));
(C) The taxpayer's pro rata share of debt obligations of any related person held by the related person (as valued under paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this section); and
(D) The total value of stock in all related persons held by the related person as determined under this paragraph (h)(4).
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(k) * * * Paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3) and (h)(4) apply to taxable years beginning on or after
The revisions read as follows:
(e)(2) through (e)(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.861–9(e)(2) through (e)(3).
(h) * * *
(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.861–9(h)(4).
(d)(3) through (6)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.861–11T(d)(3) through (6)(i).
(ii) Any foreign corporation if more than 50 percent of the gross income of such foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States and at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group (determined with regard to this sentence). This paragraph (d)(6)(ii) applies to taxable years beginning on or after
The revision reads as follows:
(d) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 1.861–11(d)(6)(ii).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Route 4 Highway Drawbridge across Old River, mile 14.8, between Victoria Island and Byron Tract, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to paint mechanical components of the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 16, 2014 until 6 a.m. on July 20, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 10 p.m. on July 13, 2014, until July 16, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0575], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510–437–3516, email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Route 4 Highway Drawbridge, mile 14.8, over Old River, between Victoria Island and Byron Tract, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 12 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. Pursuant 33 CFR 117.183, the draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and at other times, opening the draw on signal if at least four hours advance notice is given to the drawtender at the Rio Vista drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 12.8. Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. from July 13, 2014 to July 20, 2014 to allow Caltrans to paint several mechanical components of the bridge. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the deviation period. An alternative route around Victoria Island may be used for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA is approving revisions to Connecticut's visible and particulate matter (PM) emissions, recordkeeping and monitoring regulations. These revised rules establish and require limitations on visible and PM emissions for stationary sources, and clarify reporting requirements for operation of air-pollution-control and monitoring equipment. EPA is approving this SIP revision because EPA has determined that it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in Connecticut or with any other applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.
This rule is effective on August 15, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0469. All documents in the electronic docket are listed on the
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106–1630.
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone number (617) 918–1684, fax number (617) 918–0684, email
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Connecticut first adopted regulations to limit visible and PM emissions from stationary sources, including, among other sources, electric generating units (EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s. In 1972, EPA approved “Control of particulate emissions,” into the Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). That regulation has since been recodified as Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a–174–18. See Section II of EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), dated August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), for a brief discussion of the relationships among “visible emissions,” “opacity” and “particulate matter.”
In 2003, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (now the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or CT DEEP) proposed under state law revisions to Section 22a–174–18 “Control of particulate matter and visible emissions” (herein referred to as the “visible emissions regulation”) to address short-term excursions from maximum allowed opacity levels that may occur and be measured at some stationary sources with continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS)
In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed revisions to several other RCSA sections, including 22a–174–4, “Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting” (codified as RCSA Section 19–508–4 in the Connecticut SIP, and herein referred to as the “recordkeeping regulation”), and 22a–174–7, “Air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment operation” (codified as RCSA Section 19–508–7 in the Connecticut SIP, and herein referred to as the “monitoring regulation”).
CT DEEP held a public hearing on revisions to these three (as well as several other) regulations on April 29, 2003. Subsequently, CT DEEP amended its visible emissions, recordkeeping, and monitoring regulations based on comments received from EPA and others, with an effective date of April 1, 2004.
On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP submitted the revised regulations to EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut SIP. This submittal included a provision in the visible emissions regulation providing alternate opacity limits for periods of source operation consisting of startup, shutdown or malfunctions; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load changes. These alternate opacity limits only apply to stationary sources that use COMs (Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)). However, on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent
Connecticut's December 1, 2004 submittal also included a provision that excluded sources subject to opacity limits under a federal NSPS from the opacity limits contained in the state regulations (Section 22a–174–18(j)(2)). However, on March 27, 2014, CT DEEP sent a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 22a–174–18(j)(2), which excluded emissions units that are subject to a visible emissions standard pursuant to a new source performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 60 from the visible emissions standards in Sections 22a–174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, EPA is not acting on the submission with respect to Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). In correspondence between EPA and CT DEEP it was discussed that if Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) from its SIP submission, stationary sources subject to visible emissions standards under a federal NSPS will continue to be exempt from the visible emissions standards in Sections 22a–174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the state regulation, as a matter of state law, but will remain subject to the opacity limits contained in “Control of particulate emissions” under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).
CT DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal included a total of six regulations. EPA approved three of these regulations into the Connecticut SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761). They are: RCSA Section 22a–174–3b “Exemptions from permitting for construction and operation of external combustion units, automotive refinishing operations, emergency engines, nonmetallic mineral processing equipment and surface coating operations;” RCSA Section 22a–174–30 “Dispensing of gasoline/Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery;” and RCSA Section 22a–174–43 “Portable fuel container spillage control.” Today's action addresses the remaining three regulations contained in the December 1, 2004 SIP submittal, namely RCSA Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 22a–174–18 (except for the portions of Section 22a–174–18, noted earlier, which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP submittal). As stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, these three regulations amend earlier versions of certain recordkeeping, monitoring, and visible and PM emissions regulations.
On August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), EPA proposed approval of RCSA Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and 22a–174–18 (without the withdrawn portion relating to malfunctions). After our August 15, 2013 NPR, CT DEEP withdrew Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) as we noted above. Specific details of Connecticut's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed approval are explained in the August 15, 2013 NPR and will not be restated in this notice, except to the extent relevant to our responses to public comments we received on our proposal.
EPA received comments on our August 15, 2013 NPR from the following entities: NRG Energy, Inc. and Montville Power LLC (collectively referred to herein as NRG); PSEG Services Corporation; the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Massachusetts; and the Sierra Club. The public comments received are contained in the docket for today's final action. We summarize and respond to all of those comments below.
NRG noted that although Middletown Station #3 employs “water injection” at its facility, water injection is not used for compliance purposes, an inference that may have been drawn from the information contained in Table 1 of our August 15, 2013 NPR. EPA acknowledges NRG's factual assertion, but also notes that NRG's point does not impact in one way or the other the substance of EPA's final action today. NRG also noted a typographical error in Section IV.C.a(1) of our August 15, 2013 NPR. NRG noted that the reference in that section to “Mountville Station #4” actually should be a reference to “Middletown Station #4.” EPA acknowledges that typographical error, but also notes that NRG's point does not impact in one way or the other the substance of EPA's final action today.
PSEG's comments were supportive of our proposed action, stating that as an owner and operator of sources regulated by the SIP revisions in question the company is ideally situated to provide comments. Among other things, PSEG noted that EPA had determined that the revised visible emission regulations would not result in interference with maintenance of the PM NAAQS in Connecticut, and that certain aspects of the revised regulations would actually enhance protection of air quality through improved control of visible emissions due, in part, to the requirement to use COMS. While EPA believes that the revisions to Connecticut's Section 22a–174–18 (visible emissions regulation) may allow slight emission increases, EPA agrees with PSEG that the revisions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and is otherwise consistent with the CAA.
In addition, as noted in EPA's July 19, 2013 proposed approval of Connecticut's redesignation request, air quality design values (DVs) for the years 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 2009–2011 show that both New Haven and Fairfield counties are well below the 1997 annual PM
Furthermore, modeling analyses conducted by EPA in relation to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) associated with the 2012 PM
In summary, as the entire State of Connecticut is currently designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the applicable PM NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.307), section 193 of the CAA is not applicable or relevant to our analysis of the SIP revisions.
EPA requires an evaluation whether changes to SIP-approved opacity limits are likely to interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM NAAQS pursuant to section 110(
For these SIP revisions, EPA has assessed the likelihood of interference with the PM
Taking into consideration the small amount of total PM
Our August 15, 2013 NPR (beginning at 78 FR 49705) contains an analysis of the section 110(
First, in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we considered and evaluated (although we stated that we did not precisely quantify) potential emissions increases that could result from the SIP revisions (78 FR 49705–49707). As noted, we considered emissions increases that potentially might occur as a result of the relaxation of the SIP's opacity limits during periods of source operation limited to startup or shutdown; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load changes. We noted that, of the 20 units (all of which utilized COMS) for which the state originally designed the alternative opacity limit in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), eight of those units are now permanently removed from service and three additional units have since switched their primary fuel from residual oil to natural gas (resulting in significant reductions of emissions of PM and PM precursors during operation). Thus, our August 15, 2013 NPR noted that for purposes of examining potential emission increases that may arise from the alternative opacity limit in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), our focus would be limited to the potential impacts of increased opacity at the remaining nine of the original 20 units. We also noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that the requirements of section 110(
We concluded in our August 15, 2013 NPR that “taking into consideration the universe of sources subject to the revised opacity standard, the fuels and emissions limits applicable to those sources (including those that are more stringent under the revision), and the nature of the alternative opacity limit (which only allows an increase from 40% to 60% opacity during certain limited modes of source operation during a maximum period of time just under 11 hours per calendar quarter), that while there may be an increase in PM emissions associated with this SIP revision, any such increase would be small, especially in relation to the applicable attainment margin. It is also critical to note that Connecticut's revised rule includes an important check on any potential increase in emissions that could occur, even under the alternative opacity limit. The revised regulation restricts the amount of time that sources with COMS may operate under the alternate opacity limit to 0.5 percent of a facility's total operating hours during any calendar quarter, or slightly less than 11 hours. EPA believes that these changes to the opacity limit may result in increased PM emissions, and considered whether those increased emissions would interfere with maintenance of the PM
We believe that our discussion in the August 15, 2013 NPR is sufficient to address any concerns under section 110(
Our August 15, 2013 NPR also contained a separate CAA section 110(
In addition to the analysis above of specific potential emissions increases associated with the SIP revisions, as noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we also considered recent data from emissions inventories and ambient air-quality monitoring to show that Connecticut's statewide emissions have declined substantially in recent years, and that the state's current air quality is well below the federal primary and secondary PM
As to the Sierra Club's comment that Table 4 of our August 15, 2013 NPR shows that Fairfield County's maximum 24-hour PM
The SIP revisions we are approving in this action, which apply to emissions from stationary sources, are unlikely to add substantially to ambient PM
As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, our CAA section 110(
Second, EPA is evaluating this criterion based upon factual information developed by the state to support the higher alternative emission limits applicable to the affected sources. Our August 15, 2013 NPR explains the difficulties that some sources may have in meeting the otherwise applicable opacity emissions limits during non-steady-state modes of source operation, such as startup and shutdown. Included in EPA's explanations of such technical challenges was a reference to a CT DEEP workgroup provided to EPA by letter dated January 14, 2013 (included in the docket for this action). As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the CT DEEP workgroup considered technical issues that make it difficult for some facilities to consistently meet, during periods of operation such as startup and shutdown, opacity limits that apply during normal steady-state operating conditions. The CT DEEP workgroup based its recommendations for an alternate emissions limit on the technology, normal operating procedures, and type of fuels used, as well as a review of historical opacity data for the sources in question (see Table 1 of EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR). The units considered for an alternative opacity limit were older and less efficient than new units that would be installed today. The workgroup took into account the fact that older
Finally, the Connecticut SIP's revised recordkeeping and monitoring requirements serve as an additional, supplemental compliance tool that will help to ensure that the units emit at the alternative opacity limit only during the allowed modes of operation and within the allowed periods of time. As we stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the revisions to Connecticut's recordkeeping and monitoring requirements clarify and improve enforceability of SIP requirements. For example, revised 22a–174–4 includes specific data availability requirements and revised 22a–174–7 includes explicit, specific time frames for various notifications (such as “no later than two business days”), as compared to prior requirements to notify the state “promptly.”
Furthermore, in response to the Sierra Club's assertion that EPA and Connecticut failed to attempt to quantify any potential worst-case scenario increase in emissions, we do so here. The
Finally, our August 15, 2013 NPR statement about the availability of additional CAA authorities that EPA could use to address any future problems in relation to the PM NAAQS was not intended to indicate that we anticipate there will be such a problem and, as we have explained in this notice, we have no reason to expect that such a problem will arise. We only intended to point out that the CAA
In addition, we note that the quarterly reporting requirement is aligned with the regulation's quarterly maximum limit on use of the alternative opacity limit (slightly less than 11 hours). Moreover, the exception in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) itself is designed on its face to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load changes. That is, the source operator must limit the time period during which the alternative opacity limit applies to less than 11 hours per calendar quarter, and must limit opacity levels during such periods to no more than 60% opacity during any 6-minute block average.
The Sierra Club did not submit an adverse comment on criterion #7, noting that the criterion “is met by Connecticut's proposed opacity SIP revisions.” Accordingly, no response from EPA is necessary or provided here.
In response to CLF's comments about the effective date of our approval of Connecticut's SIP revision and the relationship of these specific revisions to factual circumstances that pre-date the effective date of the SIP revisions, the SIP revisions we are approving today are effective on August 15, 2014. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions does not change the legal requirements that applied under the SIP, prior to this action.
EPA is approving and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP three regulations submitted by the State of Connecticut on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA is approving revised RCSA Section 22a–174–18 “Control of particulate matter and visible emissions,” except for the phrase “or malfunction” in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174–18(j)(2), which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP submission. EPA is also approving revised RCSA Section 22a–174–4 “Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting,” and revised RCSA Section 22a–174–7 “Air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment operation.” These latter two regulations strengthen monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which improve the state's ability to detect violations of emissions limits. As noted earlier, because Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) from its SIP submission, stationary sources subject to a federal NSPS will remain subject to the opacity limits contained in “Control of particulate emissions” under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).
Revised Section 22a–174–18 establishes and requires limitations on visible and PM emissions from certain stationary sources, identifies a standardized method for determining compliance for sources without COMS, and establishes an alternative opacity limit of up to 60 percent opacity (during any 6-minute block average) during certain non-steady-state modes of operation for sources with COMS. In addition, the revised regulation sets a strict limit on the amount of time (0.5 percent of a facility's total operating hours during any calendar quarter) that sources with COMS can operate under the alternative opacity limit. As described earlier in this notice, we believe that the revision of Section 22a–174–18 will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or other applicable CAA requirements, and thus is approvable with respect to section 110(
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 9, 2014.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(104) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on December 1, 2004.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection dated December 1, 2004 submitting a revision to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, Section 22a–174, Abatement of Air Pollution Regulations, amended April 1, 2004:
(
(
(
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from CT DEEP dated January 14, 2013, entitled “Information to Support EPA's Approval of Connecticut's Requirements for Opacity.”
(B) Letter from CT DEEP dated July 8, 2013, withdrawing from CT DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision the phrase “and malfunction” from Subsection (j)(1) of RCSA Section 22a–174–18.
(C) Letter from CT DEEP dated March 27, 2014, withdrawing from CT DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision Section 22a–174–18(j)(2).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Maryland 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 State of Maryland has made submittals addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS.
This final rule is effective on August 15, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by email at
On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the primary and secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter the 2008 Pb NAAQS), revising the level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. The contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs and section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS.
For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous lead NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states have to review and revise, as appropriate, their existing lead NAAQS SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued guidance on October 14, 2011, entitled, “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” which lists the basic elements that states should include in their SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
On May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25059), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland proposing approval of Maryland's January 3, 2013 and August 14, 2013 submittals to satisfy several requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of the following infrastructure elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. This action does not include any action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process if necessary. The rationale which supports 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 is approving two revisions to the Maryland SIP, Maryland's January 3, 2013 and August 14, 2013 submittals for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, that address the following infrastructure elements: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 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.
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).
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 September 15, 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 infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the State of Maryland, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Michigan and Wisconsin while taking final action to approve some elements and disapprove other elements of SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 Pb NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. Illinois and Minnesota already administer federally promulgated regulations that address the final disapprovals described in today's rulemaking. Therefore, these two states are not obligated to submit new or additional regulations to EPA.
This final rule is effective on August 15, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on May 13, 2014, and EPA received two comment letters during the comment period, which ended on June 12, 2014. One of the letters supported EPA's proposed actions, and the concerns raised in the other letter, as well as EPA's response, will be addressed in this final action.
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the following states in EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their 2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: Illinois—December 31, 2012; Michigan—April 3, 2012, and supplemented on August 9, 2013, and September 19, 2013; Minnesota—June 19, 2012; and, Wisconsin—July 26, 2012.
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for Pb and ozone already meet those requirements.
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
As described in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking (
The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect to each state's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS closed on June 12, 2014. EPA received two comment letters, one of which was in support of our proposed actions. A synopsis of the adverse comments contained in the other letter, as well as EPA's response, is discussed below.
For the reasons discussed in our May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking and in the above response to a public comment, EPA is taking final action to approve, as proposed, most elements of submissions from Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying that their current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are also taking final action to disapprove some elements of submissions from Illinois and Minnesota related to each state's PSD program. As described in the proposed rulemaking, both of these states already administer Federally promulgated PSD regulations through delegation, and therefore, no practical effect is associated with today's final disapproval of those elements (
To clarify, EPA is taking final action to disapprove the infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to certain PSD requirements including: (i) Provisions that adequate address the 2008 Pb NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification of oxides of nitrogen (NO
EPA is also taking final action to disapprove the infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with PSD programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to notify neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source, consistent with the requirements of section 126(a).
However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA because Federally promulgated rules, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in effect in each of these states. EPA has delegated the authority to Illinois and Minnesota to administer these rules, which include provisions related to PSD and interstate pollution abatement. This
EPA's final actions for each state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are contained in the table below.
In the above table, the key is as follows:
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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) Approval and Disapproval—In a December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on the state board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving portions of Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of significant deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).
(e) * * *
(e) * * *
(f) Approval—In a July 26, 2012, submittal, Wisconsin certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of coco alkyl dimethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788–93–0) when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) in pesticide formulations applied to crops preharvest at a concentration not to exceed 0.5% by weight. Technology Sciences Group Inc., 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of coco alkyl dimethyl amines.
This regulation is effective July 16, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2014, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590, is available at
Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Technology Sciences Group Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket,
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has approved of the use of coco alkyl dimethyl amines at a maximum concentration not to exceed 0.5% by weight in the final end-use formulation. This limitation is based on the Agency's
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for coco alkyl dimethyl amines, including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with coco alkyl dimethyl amines follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by coco alkyl dimethyl amines as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
In 2004, the Agency's High Production Volume (HPV) reviewed 23 fatty nitrogen derived amines. Coco alkyl dimethyl amines was among the group of fatty nitrogen derived amines. In instances where complete data sets were not available, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as part of the High Production Volume (HPV) Test Challenge Program for Fatty Nitrogen Derivatives, utilized data derived from structurally closely related compounds. The predominant alkyl species in coco alkyl dimethyl amines is the dodecyl (C
The coco alkyl dimethyl amines exhibit low toxicity via the acute oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. In rats the acute oral LD
A 28-day toxicity study was conducted using Sprague-Dawley rats which received an oral gavage dose of 0, 50, 150, or 300 mg/kg bw/day. At 150 mg/kg bw/day, animals displayed mild adverse behavior, including snout rubbing. A NOAEL of 50 mg/kg bw/day was observed in this study.
There was no evidence of mutagenicity in the Ames test for
A gavage reproductive/developmental toxicity screening study was conducted where
None of the amines discussed in the American Chemistry Council High Production Volume challenge document were mutagenic. As noted in the HPV challenge, “The vast majority of the
In addition, the Agency conducted additional review of coco alkyl dimethyl amines using DEREK software analysis to determine if there were any alerts for carcinogenicity or other chronic toxicity. The results of the DEREK analysis indicated that there were no “ALERTS” for carcinogenicity. Based on the lack of concern regarding mutagenicity and lack of carcinogenicity in animal studies for surrogate chemicals and lack of any carcinogenicity alerts in the DEREK analysis, the EPA concluded that coco alkyl diethyl amines are unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk.
No dermal toxicity or dermal absorption studies are available for coco alkyl diethyl amines. A dermal absorption study is available for 1-dodecanamine which is structurally closely related. The dermal absorption of 1-dodecanamine was determined to be 60%. The coco alkyl diethyl amine is a larger molecule than 1-dodecanamine, therefore, it is not expected to be absorbed at a greater rate.
No studies were found specific to the metabolic pathway or toxicokinetic properties of coco alkyl dimethyl amines in mammalian systems. However, based on the knowledge of metabolism of structurally similar compounds in mammals, hepatic dealkylation readily occurs with secondary and tertiary amines, with the methyl groups leaving preferentially. Oxidation of the alpha carbon via cytochrome P450, forms a carbinolamine intermediate that will spontaneously cleave to form a secondary amine and a carbonyl compound. Subsequent, dealkylation of the secondary amine will take place at a slower rate. In a more minor pathway, hydroxylation of the nitrogen atom by hepatic oxidases may take place. Fatty acids are primarily excreted as CO
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
No acute endpoint of concern was identified in the available database, therefore
1.
Because an acute endpoint of concern was not identified, an acute dietary exposure assessment is not necessary. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM–FCID
2.
3.
Based upon the requested use pattern coco alkyl diethyl amines as an emulsifier that aids in the spray application of pesticides, EPA does not expect non-occupational (i.e., residential) pesticide handler exposures. However, if it is used in pesticide formulations in residential setting then it could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure and EPA has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to coco alkyl diethyl amines. It is possible that non-dietary exposure (primarily dermal) could occur as a result of non-pesticidal uses of coco alkyl dimethyl amines such as use in detergents, fabric softeners or anti-static agents. The dietary assessment indicates 3.8% of the RfD for the total U.S. population and 14.1% for children 1–2 years of age (the population most at risk). In light of the highly conservative dietary exposure assessment, the relatively low amount of projected dietary exposure compared to the RfD, and the primary route for non-dietary exposure (dermal), the EPA believes exposure from non-dietary sources will not exceed the Agency's level of concern. In addition, the combined dermal and inhalation MOEs from possible pesticidal residential uses are in the range of 13,000 to 1,666,000.
4.
EPA has not found coco alkyl dimethyl amines to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and coco alkyl dimethyl amines does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that coco alkyl dimethyl amines does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for coco alkyl diethyl amines is incomplete. The following acceptable studies are available: 28-day Oral toxicity study in rats Reproduction/Developmental Screening study in rats.
EPA has retained a FQPA factor of 10X due to lack of a long term study conducted evaluating all current guideline parameters, the limited number of animals used in the reproductive/developmental study and the lack of an inhalation toxicity study.
ii. Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies were not available for review.
However, evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was not observed in the submitted studies. Therefore, an immunotoxicity study or a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required at this time.
iii. There is no evidence that coco alkyl dimethyl amines results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to coco alkyl diethyl amines in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by coco alkyl dimethyl amines.
Given the relatively low toxicity demonstrated by coco alkyl dimethyl amines and the very conservative exposure assessment used, EPA has determined that, despite the incompleteness of the toxicity database, an additional SF of 10X will be protective of infants and children.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of coco alkyl dimethyl amines in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of coco alkyl dimethyl amines that may be used in pesticide formulations. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution that contains greater than 0.5% of coco alkyl dimethyl amines in the pesticide formulation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for coco alkyl dimethyl amines.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for coco alkyl diethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788–93–0) when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) in pesticide formulations applied pre-harvest to growing crops at a maximum not to exceed 0.5% by weight in the final pesticide formulation.
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission adopted rules that relax the out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits for Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) digital mobile stations (broadband mobile devices) operating in the 2496–2690 MHz radio frequency (RF) band (2.5 GHz band). These changes will enable operators to use BRS and EBS spectrum more efficiently and provide higher data rates to consumers. These changes will also promote greater consistency between the Commission's BRS/EBS technical rules and global standards for broadband mobile devices in the 2.5 GHz band, potentially making equipment more affordable and furthering the proliferation of broadband mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets that operate in the 2.5 GHz band.
Effective August 15, 2014.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Nancy M. Zaczek, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418–0274 or
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In this
2.
3. To protect against adjacent channel interference and to facilitate mobile operations in the band, the Commission's 2004 decision also revised the OOBE limits for BRS and EBS licensees operating in the LBS and UBS, consistent with a proposal made by a coalition of organizations representing BRS and EBS licensees. The Commission retained the existing OOBE limits for MBS analog operations, but applied the new OOBE limits to MBS digital operations with the result that all digital operations throughout the 2.5 GHz band would be subject to the same OOBE limits. For mobile broadband devices, the Commission
4. Since the Commission adopted these OOBE limits and other changes to the BRS/EBS services in 2004, Clearwire Corporation (Clearwire) has become the predominant operator in the band. Clearwire and other operators in the 2.5 GHz band use equipment designed according to the Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) version 802.16e standard, a technology based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.16 standard, to provide wireless broadband service. Sprint, which now controls 100 percent of Clearwire, has announced its intent to deploy a Time Division Duplex (TDD) system based on Long Term Evolution (LTE), another global standard for wireless broadband technology, in the 2.5 GHz band as part of its Sprint Spark service, which is currently available in 11 markets. The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), a consensus-driven international partnership of telecommunications standards bodies, developed LTE. 3GPP has identified three band classes for LTE applicable to the 2.5 GHz Band:
• Band Class 7 (Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) operation with uplink operation in 2500–2570 MHz and downlink operation in 2620–2690 MHz);
• Band Class 38 (TDD operation in 2570–2620 MHz); and
• Band Class 41 (TDD operation throughout the 2496–2690 MHz band).
5. Sprint estimates that 100 million customers will have Sprint Spark or 2.5 GHz band coverage by the end of 2014. IEEE and 3GPP state that they are refining their respective standards into new versions: WiMAX 2 (based on the 802.16m standard) and Advanced-LTE (3GPP Release 10 and beyond).
6. To cope with increased demand for Fourth Generation (4G) services while using spectrum efficiently, WiMAX2 and LTE-Advanced equipment will use channels that have bandwidths up to 40–100 megahertz. In contrast, current WiMAX equipment typically uses channels that have a maximum bandwidth of 10 megahertz. Although channels in the LBS and UBS, except for BRS1 and BRS Channel 2 (BRS2), are 5.5 megahertz, operators generally combine multiple channels to provide service.
7.
8.
• 40 + 10 log (P) (where (P) is the transmitter power in Watts) dB at the channel edge, measured using a resolution bandwidth of 2 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block;
• 43 + 10 log (P) dB beyond 5 megahertz from the channel edges; and
• 55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a separation of X megahertz from the channel edges, where X is the greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in § 27.53(m)(6) of the Commission's rules.
9. In addition to seeking comment on the specific OOBE limits proposed by WCAI, the Commission also inquired about the following issues:
• Whether the proposed rule changes are necessary to permit mobile broadband devices to operate in the 2.5 GHz band using channel bandwidths wider than 10 megahertz;
• Whether the proposed rule changes would result in insufficient protection against harmful interference within the 2.5 GHz band, and if so, whether additional protections against such harmful interference would be needed;
• Whether the proposed rule changes would increase the potential for harmful interference into the MSS and BAS below 2495 MHz;
• Whether the Commission should adopt a fixed limit for OOBE below 2495 MHz or above 2690 MHz;
• Whether the proposed rule would work for channels wider than 20 megahertz without causing harmful interference to operations in adjacent bands;
• Whether the proposed rule changes would be consistent with IEEE's continuing development of WiMAX2, as well as other evolving standards; and
• Whether any additional changes to the OOBE limits applicable to digital mobile stations in the 2.5 GHz band are necessary or desirable to promote greater efficiency and flexibility in the provision of broadband services in these bands.
10.
11. On October 18, 2012, in response to the opposition comments of Globalstar and EIBASS, Clearwire proposed a modification of the
• 40 + 10 log (P) (where (P) is the transmitter power in Watts) dB at the channel edge;
• 43 + 10 log (P) dB beyond 5 megahertz from the channel edges;
• 55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a separation of X megahertz from the channel edges, where X is the greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in § 27.53(m)(6) of the Commission's rules;
• 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2496 MHz; and
• 55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5 MHz.
12. Clearwire also proposed that the Commission modify WCAI's proposal to change the way compliance with the OOBE limits is measured for BRS/EBS mobile digital stations. Under the Commission's current rules, compliance is measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater, except in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, where a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the transmitter's fundamental emission may be used. In its petition, WCAI had requested that the resolution bandwidth be changed to 2 percent in all portions of the 2.5 GHz band. Clearwire proposed that, except for the 2495–2496 MHz band, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block under use, a resolution bandwidth of at least 2 percent of the fundamental emission be allowed to measure compliance. In the 2495–2496 MHz band, the existing resolution bandwidth requirement of at least 1 percent would still apply. Globalstar does not object to the modified Clearwire proposals. No other commenting party objected to Clearwire's proposed modification.
13. We find that the public interest will be served by a modification of the OOBE limits for BRS and EBS mobile broadband devices as proposed in the
14. First, by adjusting our OOBE standards, we can facilitate the use of wider channels, which will result in faster data rates and allow the use of advanced wireless technologies such as LTE-Advanced. Commenters unanimously tout the benefits of wider channels. The record shows that changes to our OOBE standards are necessary to facilitate development of a device ecosystem that would fully take advantage of wider channels in the 2.5 GHz band. To that end, most equipment manufacturers support the proposed changes. While IP Wireless states that it has developed a universal serial bus (USB) stick that can operate with 20 megahertz channels and comply with the existing OOBE requirements, it does not appear, given the state of current technology, that such performance can be cost-effectively replicated with highly mobile, highly integrated, multi‐mode, multi‐band smartphones. Furthermore, there is a benefit in having a wide variety of equipment manufacturers providing devices that can operate on wider channels.
15. Second, the changes will conform our 2.5 GHz band OOBE limits to the emission mask standards established by 3GPP for 20 megahertz channels. Specifically, the adopted rules will make our OOBE standards consistent with the general OOBE standards adopted by 3GPP for 20 megahertz channels. The 3GPP standards provide for an OOBE power of −10 dBm (−40 dBW), which corresponds to an OOBE attenuation factor of 40 + 10 log (P) dB up to 5 megahertz away from the channel edge, and an OOBE power of −13 dBm (−43 dBW), which corresponds to an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB up to 20 megahertz away from the channel edge. Adopting internationally harmonized OOBE standards for the 2.5 GHz band will result in several advantages for manufacturers, operators, and consumers. For example, internationally harmonized standards will allow manufacturers to produce equipment that can be used worldwide, lowering their development and production costs, thereby increasing consumer choice and supply and decreasing the cost of mobile broadband devices available for use domestically. In addition, harmonizing the standards will facilitate international roaming by consumers since there will be a consistent set of technical standards that will apply to broadband mobile devices.
16. Third, our action will facilitate the continued development of mobile wireless broadband services in the 2.5 GHz band. These changes will facilitate the use of TDD technologies, since TDD operations use a single wider channel, as opposed to the two narrower channels that are used in FDD operations. Our action will provide operators with additional flexibility to use the 2.5 GHz band more efficiently and more intensively.
17. Fourth, we can change our 2.5 GHz band OOBE rules without materially increasing the potential for harmful interference to other authorized services in bands adjacent to the 2.5 GHz band. In the
18. EIBASS also expressed concern about increased interference to BAS Channel A10 (2483.5–2500 MHz). With respect to the 2491–2500 MHz portion of that channel, that portion could, in theory, be subject to increased interference from certain adjacent channel BRS/EBS mobile units' increased OOBE. Under Clearwire's relaxed OOBE parameters, the theoretical increase in potential interference would result because mobile units operating with a 20 megahertz channel at 2511–2531 MHz would only be required to attenuate OOBE by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB above 2491 MHz, while under the current rules, they are required to attenuate OOBE by a factor of 55 + 10 log (P) dB. For mobile units operating with a 20 megahertz channel at 2502–2522 MHz, a theoretical increase in potential interference would result because they would only be required to attenuate OOBE by a factor of 40 + 10 log (P) dB from 2497–2500 MHz, while under the current rules they are required to attenuate OOBE by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB from 2497–2500 MHz. However, we believe the chance of harmful interference to BAS Channel A10 is very low for several reasons. First, we note that BAS Channel A10 is currently subject to OOBE from BRS/EBS base stations, which can operate at higher power than mobile units. Notwithstanding this fact, we are unaware of any allegation or complaint that BRS/EBS operations have caused harmful interference to BAS Channel A10 operations. Second, there are many fewer operations on BAS Channel A10 (56 active licenses) than on any other BAS channel. EIBASS is correct that multiple transmitters can be authorized under a single license. It is nonetheless true that BAS Channel A10 is much more lightly utilized than BAS Channel A9, which has 788 active BAS licenses. BRS/EBS mobile stations are unlikely to be operated in close proximity to BAS receiving antennas, which are typically located on the same or similar structures as TV broadcasting antennas. Third, because the primary use of the 2.5 GHz band is for TDD operations, we believe BRS/EBS operators are unlikely to use channels at or near the lower edge of the 2.5 GHz band in situations where base stations may cause harmful interference to BAS or MSS operations. We therefore conclude that any potential increase in OOBE is highly unlikely to result in harmful interference to the BAS.
19. Under Clearwire's suggested approach, any BRS or EBS channel can operate under the relaxed OOBE limits except at 2496 MHz, where the existing OOBE limits applicable to a channel with a lower edge at 2496 MHz would apply. Under our existing rules, a mobile broadband device with a 10 megahertz bandwidth in the 2496–2506 MHz band (the bottom of the 2.5 GHz band) must have an OOBE attenuation factor below the transmitter power (P) by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2496 MHz (the channel edge), and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2490.5 MHz (5.5 megahertz below the channel edge). Under the rules we have adopted, all 2.5 GHz band mobile broadband devices must maintain an OOBE attenuation factor of at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2490.5 MHz and 2496 MHz and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5 MHz. Thus, under the Commission's actions, the current OOBE limits applicable to a channel with a lower edge at 2496 MHz will apply,
20. The relaxed OOBE limits for broadband mobile equipment operating in the 2.5 GHz band will not materially increase the potential for harmful interference within the 2.5 GHz band. While we do not casually adopt looser OOBE standards, modest relaxing of our OOBE rules in line with the 3GPP standards is not likely to result in harmful interference to other BRS/EBS stations. Furthermore, as noted above, most operators and equipment manufacturers support the proposed standard. IP Wireless is concerned about the coexistence of multiple unsynchronized TDD systems operating with relaxed OOBE in the same area. As WCAI pointed out, however, the potential for harmful interference among uncoordinated TDD systems or between TDD and FDD systems already exists in the 2.5 GHz band because, in the
21. Northrop Grumman has experienced base-to-base adjacent channel interference, which was resolved by adding supplementary filtering to the relevant base stations. Northrop Grumman expressed concern that as the customer base of the adjacent commercial carrier grows, the potential for commercial broadband mobile devices to interfere with a system for which Northrop Grumman is the systems integrator will increase significantly. We find Northrop Grumman's concerns to be speculative. As WCAI has pointed out, the practical output power limitations of industry transmitter designs for 4G mobile broadband devices mitigate the potential for harmful interference. Moreover, 4G mobile broadband devices using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) technology will typically not be allocated all available bandwidth while at the same time operating at full transmit power. Motorola Mobility agreed, and argued that interference concerns are merely hypothetical because to maximize battery life and minimize intra-system interference, 4G mobile broadband devices operate under stringent power control. The likelihood of harmful interference actually occurring is very small, Motorola Mobility continues, because typical 4G system design specifications limit the bandwidth that
22. We also adopt Clearwire's proposed changes to the procedures for measuring compliance with the OOBE limits. Revising the resolution bandwidth used for measuring compliance with the OOBE limits will help ensure that our limits are consistent with international standards. Clearwire's proposal was not opposed by any party. Therefore, we will change the rules to specify that, except for the 2495–2496 MHz band, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block under use, a resolution bandwidth of at least 2 percent of the fundamental emission be allowed to measure compliance. In the 2495–2496 MHz band, the existing resolution bandwidth requirement of at least 1 percent would still apply.
23. With respect to the remaining questions raised in the
24. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by the RFA of 1980, we incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
25. In this
26. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.
27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small business, small organization, and small governmental jurisdiction. In addition, the term small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Here, we describe the small entities to which the rule will apply.
28.
29. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based educational broadcasting services. Since 2007, Wired Telecommunications Carriers have been defined as follows: This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of such firms can be considered small. In addition to Census data, the Commission's Universal Licensing System indicates that as of July 2013, there are 2,236 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,236 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.
30. This
31. The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps it has taken to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes. We see no potential burden on small entities that hold BRS or EBS licenses. We believe our action today provides benefits to small businesses that hold BRS and EBS licensees, who would be able to use wider channel bandwidths to provide faster service and use their spectrum more efficiently.
32. The main alternative considered was to adopt the proposed rule changes without maintaining the current level of interference protection to adjacent channel licensees below 2495 MHz. That alternative was rejected because it could have increased the potential for harmful interference to licensees operating below 2495 MHz and because it is possible for licensees in the 2.5 GHz band to get the benefits of wider channel bandwidths in most of the band without changing the out-of-band emission limits that apply below 2495 MHz.
33. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
34. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706, that this
35. It is further ordered pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Communications common carriers—radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 27 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307(a), 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404 and 1451 unless otherwise noted.
(m) * * *
(4) For mobile digital stations, the attenuation factor shall be not less than 40 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between the channel edge and 5 megahertz from the channel edge, 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 5 megahertz and X megahertz from the channel edge, and 55 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies more than X megahertz from the channel edge, where X is the greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in paragraph (m)(6) of this section. In addition, the attenuation factor shall not be less that 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2490.5 MHz and 2496 MHz and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5 MHz. Mobile Satellite Service licensees operating on frequencies below 2495 MHz may also submit a documented interference complaint against BRS licensees operating on channel BRS Channel 1 on the same terms and conditions as adjacent channel BRS or EBS licensees.
(6) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed; for mobile digital stations, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least two percent may be employed, except when the 1 megahertz band is 2495–2496 MHz, in which case a resolution
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; denial of application for review.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) grants in part and denies in part the Application for Review filed by the Curators of the University of Missouri (“Petitioner”) of the
July 16, 2014.
Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
On March 24, 2004, the Petitioner requested the reservation of vacant Channel 252C2 at Columbia, Missouri, for NCE use. Although its proposal would provide a second NCE service to over 22,000 persons that would comprise about 7 percent of its service area, the Petitioner requested a waiver of § 73.202(a)(1)(ii) because that rule requires that a station provide a first and/or second NCE service to at least ten percent of the population within the 1 mV/m contour of the proposed station that is at least 2,000 persons in order to reserve the channel.
The Bureau initially returned the Petition because it did not meet the ten percent channel reservation threshold and did not otherwise address the Petitioner's waiver request. Upon reconsideration, the Bureau found in the
On review, the Commission finds that the Bureau failed to give the Petitioner's waiver request the required “hard look” and grants the Application for Review to that extent. However, the Commission finds that a waiver of the reservation standard is not warranted because it is not enough that the number of persons receiving a first or second NCE service exceeds the 2,000 person requirement. Rather, the Commission made clear, in adopting this rule, that the number of persons must constitute ten percent or more of the station's service area. Otherwise, the need for a reserved channel is not great enough.
The Commission also finds that the licensing circumstances that Petitioner faces are not exceptional because 13 other NCE FM stations provide some level of NCE service to the 288,383 persons located within the allotment's predicted service area. Finally, the Commission rejects the Petitioner's argument that the ten percent standard is difficult to satisfy because, out of 129 petitions for the reservation of allotments, the Commission has granted 55. Accordingly, the Commission denies the Application for Review in all other respects.
This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2014 total allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 13, 2014, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 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.
The 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA is 1,931 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (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 2014 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,831 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 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 ocean perch in the West Yakutat District 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 closure of directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District 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 July 10, 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 ocean perch in the Western Aleutian district (WAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in this area allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 11, 2014, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2014.
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2014 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the WAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 171 metric tons by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014).
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 ocean perch in the WAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
After the effective dates 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 Acting 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 a 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 closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishery in the WAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 9, 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
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of membership.
This notice announces the members of the working group to negotiate regional enforcement regulations of certain energy conservation standards, under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA). The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the enforcement of certain regional energy conservation standards, as authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. The working group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed regulations, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.
An open meeting will be scheduled at a later date.
John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, Supervisory Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email:
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice of proposed rulemaking.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of membership.
This notice announces the members of the working group to negotiate energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal standards for the energy efficiency of manufactured homes. The purpose of the working group will be to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the energy efficiency of manufactured homes, as authorized by section 413 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The working group consists of representatives of parties having a defined stake in the outcome of the proposed standards, and will consult as appropriate with a range of experts on technical issues.
An open meeting will be scheduled at a later date.
John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, Supervisory Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice of proposed rulemaking.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features are associated with the composite materials used in the construction of the fuel tank skin and structure, which may behave differently in a post-crash fire than traditional aluminum construction. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before September 2, 2014.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–0434 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115 Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2195; facsimile 425–227–1232.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 125 for the Model BD–500–1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD–500–1A11.
Conventional airplanes with aluminum skin and structure provide a well-understood level of safety during post-crash fire scenarios with respect to fuel tanks. This is based on service history and extensive full-scale fire testing. The CSeries airplanes will not be fabricated primarily with aluminum for the fuel tank structure. Instead, they will be fabricated using predominantly composite structure and skin for the wings and fuel tanks. Composites may or may not have the equivalent capability of aluminum, and current regulations do not provide objective performance requirements for wing and fuel tank structure with respect to post-crash fire safety. Because the use of composite structure is novel and unusual with respect to the designs envisioned when the applicable regulations were promulgated, additional tests and analyses substantiation will be required to show that the CSeries airplanes will provide an acceptable level of safety with respect to the performance of the wings and fuel tanks during an external fuel-fed fire.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–129.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The structural elements and skin of the wings and fuel tanks will be fabricated using predominantly composite materials rather than conventional aluminum.
Transport category airplanes in operation today have traditionally been designed with aluminum materials. Conventional airplanes with aluminum skin and structure provide a well-understood level of safety during post-crash fires with respect to fuel tanks. Current regulations were developed and have evolved under the assumption that wing construction would be of aluminum materials.
Aluminum has the following properties with respect to fuel tanks and fuel-fed external fires:
• Aluminum is highly thermally conductive and readily transmits the heat of a fuel-fed external fire to fuel in the tank. This has the benefit of rapidly driving the fuel tank ullage to exceed the upper flammability limit of fuel vapors prior to fuel tank skin burn-through or heating of the wing upper surface above the auto-ignition temperature, thus greatly reducing the threat of fuel tank explosion.
• Aluminum panels at thicknesses previously used in wing lower surfaces of large transport category airplanes have been fire resistant as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 and AC 20–135,
• Heat absorption capacity of aluminum and fuel prevent burn-through or wing collapse for a time interval that generally exceed the passenger evacuation time.
The ability of aluminum wing surfaces to withstand post-crash fire conditions when wetted by fuel on their interior surface has been demonstrated by tests conducted at the FAA Technical Center. Results of these tests have verified adequate dissipation of heat across wetted aluminum fuel tank surfaces so that localized hot spots do not occur, thus minimizing the threat of explosion. This inherent capability of aluminum to dissipate heat also allows the wing lower surface to retain its load-carrying characteristics during a fuel-fed ground fire and significantly delay wing collapse or burn-through for a time interval that usually exceeds evacuation times. In addition, as an aluminum fuel tank is heated with significant quantities of fuel inside, fuel vapor accumulates in the ullage space, exceeding the upper flammability limit relatively quickly and thus reducing the threat of a fuel tank explosion prior to fuel tank burn-through.
Fuel tanks constructed with composite materials may or may not have equivalent properties. Advisory Circular (AC) 20–107B (Change 1),
For the CSeries airplanes, composite materials will be used to fabricate the majority of wing fuel tank. Hence, the current regulations may not be adequate for the certification of the CSeries airplanes featuring wing fuel tanks fabricated with composite material. Therefore, Bombardier must present additional confirmation by test and analysis that the CSeries airplanes' design provides an acceptable level of safety with respect to the performance of the wing fuel tanks when exposed to the direct effects of post-crash ground fire or under-wing fuel-fed fires.
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.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace 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 two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Aerospace Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500–1A11 series airplanes.
1. The wing fuel tank structure must withstand an external fuel-fed pool fire for a minimum of 5 minutes.
2. The integrity of the wing fuel tank structure must be demonstrated at:
• Minimum fuel load, not less than reserve fuel level;
• Maximum fuel load equal to the maximum range fuel quantity; and
• Any other critical fuel loads.
3. The demonstration must consider fuel tank flammability, burn-through resistance, wing structural strength retention properties, and auto-ignition threats from localized heating of composite structure, fasteners, or any other feature that may produce an ignition source during a ground fire event for the required time duration.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300–600 series airplanes); and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of early ruptures on the levers of the nose landing gear (NLG) sequence valve. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection for damage of the landing gear sequence valve levers and pin shearing indicating areas on the NLG and the main landing gears (MLGs); and depending on findings, replacing the sequence valve and lever, or doing a one-time inspection to detect interference between control rods and sequence valves and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct interference between a landing gear leg and door, which could result in failure of that landing gear to extend and could damage the airplane and injure occupants.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013–0058, dated March 11, 2013 (referred to after
Operators have reported five cases of early ruptures on levers of the nose landing gear (NLG) sequence valve.
Analysis showed that these fatigue ruptures were due to an incorrect adjustment of the mechanical links. As the design of the main landing gear (MLG) sequence valve lever is similar, there is sufficient reason to assume that these parts are similarly affected by fatigue.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to interference between landing gear leg and door and consequent failure of the landing gear to extend, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the sequence valve control lever [for damage, which could include cracking or deformation], of the adjustment of the control rod between doors and landing gear sequence valve and depending on inspections results, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins:
• A300–32–0464, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A300 airplanes);
• A300–32–6110, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A300–600 airplanes); and
• A310–32–2146, dated July 17, 2012 (for Model A310 airplanes).
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the other NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $43,520, or $340 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 9 work-hours and require parts costing up to $42,000, for a cost of $42,765 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 2, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, B2–203, B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and C4–605R Variant F airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of early ruptures on the levers of the nose landing gear (NLG) sequence valve. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct interference between a landing gear leg and door, which could result in failure of that landing gear to extend, and could damage the airplane and injure occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD in accordance with the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) For Model A300 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300–32–0464, dated July 17, 2012.
(2) For Model A300–600 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300–32–6110, dated July 17, 2012.
(3) For Model A310 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310–32–2146, dated July 17, 2012.
Within 4,000 flight cycles, 6,000 flight hours, or 30 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of each sequence valve lever and pin shearing indicating area on the nose landing gear and main landing gears for any damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Do the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) If damage is found, before further flight, replace the affected sequence valve and its lever with a serviceable sequence valve and lever. No further action is required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that replaced valve and lever.
(2) If no damage is found, within the compliance time required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to detect interference between the landing gear door control rod and the landing gear sequence valve, and do all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. No further action is required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a landing gear sequence valve, unless that valve has been inspected and corrected, as applicable, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–2125; fax 425–227–1149. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2013–0058, dated March 11, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Agusta Model A109E, A109K2, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack that was found on a Gleason crown. This proposed AD would require repetitively performing a magnetic particle inspection of the Gleason crown for a crack. We are proposing this AD to detect a crack, which could cause damage to or loss of the main rotor drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39–0331–664757; fax 39–0331–664680; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013–0118, dated June 3, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109K2, A109E, A119, and AW119MKII helicopters. EASA advises that during an overhaul of an A119 main transmission, part number (P/N) 109–0400–05–103, a crack on the Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, was found. EASA further states that an investigation by Agusta revealed that the crack originated from the bottom of one of the 40 threaded holes in the Gleason crown, and that this part-numbered Gleason crown is also installed on Model A109 helicopters. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could cause damage to or loss of the main rotor drive and loss of control of the helicopter. To correct this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 2013–0118 requires repetitive magnetic particle inspections of the Gleason crown and, if there is a crack, replacing the Gleason crown with a different part-numbered Gleason crown. EASA AD No. 2013–0118 also prohibits installing a Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109–0401–27–101 or P/N 109–0401–27–109, on any helicopter, as Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, is a component of these assemblies.
We reviewed Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP–128 for Model A109E helicopters, Agusta BT No. 109K–57 for Model A109K2 helicopters, and Agusta BT No. 119–058 for Model
We also reviewed Agusta BT No. 109EP–126 for Model A109E helicopters, Agusta BT No. 109K–56 for Model A109K2 helicopters, and Agusta BT No. 119–053 for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters, each dated December 20, 2012. These BTs contain procedures for upgrading the transmission system by replacing the Gleason crown assembly with a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109–0401–27–107.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require, for helicopters with a main transmission, P/N 109–0400–03–109, with 2,400 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), performing a magnetic particle inspection of the Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, within 200 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 1,600 hours TIS. If there is a crack, this proposed AD would require replacing the Gleason crown assembly with a different part-numbered assembly before further flight. The proposed AD would also prohibit installing on any helicopter a Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109–0401–27–101 or P/N 109–0401–27–109.
This proposed AD requires compliance within 200 hours TIS for main transmissions with 2,400 or more hours. The EASA AD requires different compliance times, depending on the number of flight hours the transmission has accumulated.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 218 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, magnetic particle inspecting the Gleason crown would require about 24 work-hours, for an estimated cost per helicopter of $2,040, and a total cost of $444,720 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
If required, replacing the Gleason crown assembly would require about 24 work-hours, and required parts would cost $29,000, for a cost per helicopter of $31,040.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 2, 2014.
This AD applies to Agusta Model A109E, A109K2, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters with a main transmission part number (P/N) 109–0400–03–103, 109–0400–05–103, and 109–0400–03–109, with a Gleason crown P/N 109–0403–07–103 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a Gleason crown. This condition could cause damage to or loss of the main rotor drive and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For main transmissions with 2,400 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), within 200 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 1,600 hours TIS, magnetic particle inspect the Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, for a crack by following the procedures in:
(i) Annex 1 of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP–128, Revision A, dated May 28, 2013, for Model A109E helicopters;
(ii) Annex 1 of Agusta BT No. 109K–57, Revision A, dated May 28, 2013, for Model A109K2 helicopters; or
(iii) Annex 1 of Agusta BT No. 119–058, Revision A, dated May 28, 2013, for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters.
(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the Gleason crown assembly with a Gleason Crown assembly, P/N 109–0401–27–107. Replacing the Gleason crown assembly
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103, or a Gleason crown assembly, P/N 109–0401–27–101 or P/N 109–0401–27–109, on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, 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 (g) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39–0331–664757; fax 39–0331–664680; or at
(3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013–0118, dated June 3, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft System Component Code: 6320: Main Rotor Gearbox.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta AB139 and AW139 helicopters to require replacing certain single-braided flexible hydraulic hoses with double-braided flexible hydraulic hoses. This proposed AD is prompted by occurrences of leaking flexible hydraulic hoses. The proposed actions are intended to prevent loss of hydraulic power and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 15, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2013–0177, dated August 8, 2013, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advises that leaking hydraulic system flexible hoses have been reported on in-service helicopters. An investigation indicated that single braided flexible hydraulic hoses, which are part of the
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139–307, dated June 19, 2013 (BT), calls for replacing certain single braided flexible hydraulic hoses with double braided flexible hydraulic hoses for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The BT states that the replacement should be conducted within 300 flight hours or six months from receipt of the BT, whichever comes first, to prevent in-service leaks.
This proposed AD would require, within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing the flexible single-braided hydraulic hose with a flexible double-braided hydraulic hose. The AD would also prohibit installing the single-braided flexible hydraulic hose on any helicopter.
The EASA AD requires replacing the flexible single-braided hydraulic hoses within 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first. This proposed AD requires that the flexible single-braided hydraulic hoses be replaced within 300 hours TIS. TIS and flight hours are synonymous.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 115 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that replacing the flexible single-braided hydraulic hoses with flexible double-braided hydraulic flexible hoses would require 6 work-hours for a labor cost of $510. Parts would cost $3,089 for a total cost of $3,599 per helicopter, and $413,885 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a flexible hydraulic hose, part number (P/N) A494AE2E00E0670X, A494AE3E00E0424X, A494AE3E00E0530X, A494AE3E00E0570X, A494AE3E00E0580X, A494AE3E00E0620X, A494AE3E00E0930X, A494AE6E14E0348X, or A494AE6E21E0330X, installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a leak in a hydraulic system flexible hose. This condition could result in loss of hydraulic power and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
We must receive comments by September 15, 2014.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 300 hours time-in-service, replace each flexible hydraulic hose with a double braided flexible hydraulic hose in the accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part I, paragraphs 5 through 7; Part II, paragraphs 5 through 7; Part III, paragraphs 5 through 6; Part IV, paragraphs 5 through 6; and Part V, paragraphs 5 through 7; as applicable for your helicopter serial number and configuration, of AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139–307, dated June 19, 2013.
(2) Do not install a flexible hydraulic hose, P/N A494AE2E00E0670X, A494AE3E00E0424X, A494AE3E00E0530X, A494AE3E00E0570X, A494AE3E00E0580X, A494AE3E00E0620X, A494AE3E00E0930X, A494AE6E14E0348X, or A494AE6E21E0330X, on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013–0177, dated August 8, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2910, Hydraulic System, Main.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 8, 2014.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2013–18–01 for Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, AS–365–N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters. AD 2013–18–01 currently requires inspecting the collective pitch lever for correct locking and unlocking conditions. As published, AD 2013–18–01 contains certain errors. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2013–18–01, correct these errors, and update the type certificate holder's name. The proposed actions are intended to detect an incorrectly adjusted collective pitch lever, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 15, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at
Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
On August 21, 2013, we issued AD 2013–18–01, amendment 39–17574 (78 FR 56599, September 13, 2013) for Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters, except helicopters with modification (MOD) 0767B5 installed. AD 2013–18–01 requires inspecting the collective pitch lever for correct unlocking with a spring scale, and if required, adjusting the collective pitch lever restraining tab and, for certain models, adjusting the collective link rods. AD 2013–18–01 also requires inspecting the collective pitch lever for the risk of inadvertent locking by measuring the clearance between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab, and if required, modifying the tab with a slight bend to the tab.
AD 2013–18–01 was prompted by AD No. 2011–0154, dated August 22, 2011, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2011–0154 to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters. EASA advises that two occurrences have been reported of inadvertent locking and unlocking of the collective pitch lever. One inadvertent collective pitch lever locking occurred when moving the collective pitch lever to the low-pitch position, and one inadvertent collective pitch lever unlocking occurred during
As published, the AD number after the amendatory language section of AD 2013–18–01 is incorrect. The AD number was published as “2013–18–11.” The MOD number in paragraph (a), Applicability, of the AD is incorrect. The correct MOD number is 0767B65. Also, since we issued AD 2013–18–01, the type certificate holder's name for the affected models has changed from Eurocopter France to Airbus Helicopters. No other part of the regulatory information would be changed.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 67.00.10 for Model AS365 helicopters, ASB No. 67.05 for Model SA366 helicopters, and ASB No. 67A007 for Model EC155 helicopters. All three ASBs are Revision 1 and are dated February 25, 2009. These ASBs describe procedures for inspecting and adjusting the collective pitch lever for correct locking and unlocking conditions.
Eurocopter has also issued ASB No. 67.00.12, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2009, for Model AS365 helicopters; ASB No. 67.07, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2009, for Model AS366 helicopters; and ASB No. 67–009, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, for Model EC 155 helicopters. These ASBs contain the procedures for MOD 0767B65.
This proposed AD would retain all of the inspection and adjustment requirements of AD 2013–18–01. It would also would correct the AD number after the amendatory language, correct the MOD number in paragraph (a), and reflect the current type certificate holder's name and contact information.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 32 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Inspecting and adjusting the collective pitch lever would require about 1 work hour at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost to U.S. operators of $2,720.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA–366G1 helicopters, except helicopters with modification (MOD) 0767B65 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as inadvertent locking and unlocking of the collective pitch lever, which could result in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 2013–18–01, Amendment 39–17574 (78 FR 56599, September 13, 2013).
We must receive comments by September 15, 2014.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 50 hours time-in-service:
(1) For Model EC155B and EC155B1 helicopters:
(i) Lock the collective pitch lever, and using a spring scale, measure the load (G) required to unlock the pilot's collective pitch lever as depicted in Figure 1, Detail B of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 67A007, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 (ASB 67A007).
(ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than 11 deca Newtons (daN) (24.7 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs), before further flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining tab (F) using the oblong holes.
(iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the “low pitch” position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
(iv) Measure the clearance (J1) between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever (C) and the L-section of the restraining tab (F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail A of ASB 67A007.
(v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3 millimeters (mm), before further flight, remove the restraining tab, clamp the restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and gradually apply a load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as depicted in Figure 1, Detail K of ASB 67A007.
(2) For Model SA–365N, SA–365N1, AS–365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters:
(i) Completely loosen the friction, lock the collective pitch lever, and using a spring scale, measure the load (G) required to unlock the pilot's collective pitch lever as depicted in Figure 1, Detail B of Eurocopter ASB No. 67.00.10, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 (ASB 67.00.10).
(ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than 5 daN (11.3 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs), before further flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining tab (F) using the oblong holes and adjust the collective link rods as described in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.4., of ASB 67.00.10.
(iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the “low pitch” position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
(iv) Tighten the friction lock and measure the clearance (J1) between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever (C) and the L-section of the restraining tab (F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail A of ASB 67.00.10.
(v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3 mm, before further flight, remove the restraining tab, clamp the restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and gradually apply a load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as depicted in Figure 1, Detail K, of ASB 67.00.10.
(3) For Model SA–366G1 helicopters:
(i) Completely loosen the friction, lock the collective pitch lever, and using a spring scale, measure the load (G) required to unlock the pilot's collective pitch lever as depicted in Figure 1, Detail B of Eurocopter ASB No. 67.05, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 (ASB 67.05).
(ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than 5 daN (11.3 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs), before further flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining tab (F) using the oblong holes and adjust the collective link rods as described in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.4., of ASB 67.05.
(iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the “low pitch” position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
(iv) Tighten the friction lock and measure the clearance (J1) between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever (C) and the L-section of the restraining tab (F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail A, of ASB 67.05.
(v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3 mm, before further flight, remove the restraining tab, clamp the restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and gradually apply a load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as depicted in Figure 1, Detail K, of ASB 67.05.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 67.00.12, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2009; ASB No. 67.07, Revision 0, dated February 25, 2009; and ASB No. 67–009, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011–0154, dated August 22, 2011. You may view the EASA AD in the AD Docket on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710: Main Rotor Control.
United States Mint, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comment.
The United States Mint proposes to amend Treasury regulations relating to the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins. The proposed amendments aim to update redemption rates and procedures, as well as to resolve an apparent contradiction in the current regulation.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received by September 15, 2014.
The United States Mint invites comments on all aspects of this proposed rule. In accordance with the eRulemaking Initiative, the Department of the Treasury publishes rulemaking information on
Comments on this rule must be submitted using only the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel P. Shaver, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, United States Mint, at
The Treasury Regulations appearing at 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, are promulgated under 31 U.S.C. 5120, and provide for the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins. The last amendment to 31 CFR part 100, was on August 23, 1999 (64 FR 39919, July 23, 1999). Since then, the United States Mint has identified portions of the regulation in need of revision to update redemption rates and procedures, and to resolve an apparent contradiction in the regulation. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, appearing at 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011), the United States Mint proposes to amend the regulation to improve its consistency and accuracy.
The first category of proposed significant amendments relates to the redemption rates for uncurrent coins (31 CFR 100.10) and bent and partial coins (31 CFR 100.11) that have been withdrawn from circulation. For uncurrent coins, the proposed rule clarifies the procedure for redemption by instructing the public to deposit the uncurrent coins with a financial institution that will accept them, or with a depository institution that has a direct relationship with a Federal Reserve Bank. The proposed amendment also makes clear that a Federal Reserve Bank will redeem uncurrent coins based on the policies described in the Federal Reserve's Operating Circular 2.
For redemption of bent and partial coins, the proposed rule updates the redemption rates of certain coins to reflect current values and compositions of coins being redeemed. For example, in the current regulation, the rate for one-cent coins is $1.4585 per pound; this rate was derived from the weight of brass one-cent coins (3.11 grams or 0.1097 ounces each), which the United States Mint has not minted and issued since 1982. The weight of the current copper-plated zinc one-cent coins (2.50 grams or 0.0882 ounces each), however, makes their redemption rate $1.8100 per pound. The proposed rule revises the redemption rate for unmixed quantities of these copper-plated zinc one-cent coins.
The second category of proposed amendments resolves an apparent contradiction in the existing regulation. As currently drafted, 31 CFR 100.12(b) states, “The United States Mint will not accept fused or mixed coins for redemption.” 31 CFR 100.12(d), however, states, “Fused and mixed coins will be redeemed only at the United States Mint, P.O. Box 400, Philadelphia, PA 19105.” The issue of whether the United States Mint should accept fused and mixed coins for redemption was the subject of the 1999 amendment to 31 CFR part 100. At that time, the United States Mint notified the public, at 64 FR 4063 (January 27, 1999), of its intention to discontinue acceptance of fused and mixed coins for redemption because the bureau ordinarily cannot reliably ascertain the value of, nor use mechanical methods of destruction or reclamation on, deliveries containing coins of mixed alloy categories. To resolve this apparent contradiction and clarify the intended meaning of the 1999 amendment, which became effective on August 23, 1999, the United States Mint proposes to amend 31 CFR 100.12 to eliminate any suggestion that the bureau will accept fused or mixed coins for redemption.
The proposed rule does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866.
It is hereby certified that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Although the United States Mint does not maintain records that consistently indicate the business or personal nature of the transactions conducted by individuals or entities tendering coins for redemption, the majority of coins presented for redemption were submitted by individuals transacting with the United States Mint in their own names. Even if each such individual were a “small entity” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the United States Mint does not believe that the quantity of coin redemption transactions indicates that the proposed amendment will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Before the proposed amendments to the Treasury Regulations at 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, are adopted as final regulations, the United States Mint will consider any comments that are submitted timely to the bureau as prescribed in this preamble under the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the United States Mint proposes to amend 31 CFR part 100 substantially as follows:
31 U.S.C. 321.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(b)
(A) One-Cent Coins: $1.4585 per pound.
(B) 5-Cent Coins: $4.5359 per pound.
(C) Dime, Quarter-Dollar, and Half-Dollar Coins: $20.00 per pound.
(D) $1 Coins: $56.00 per pound.
(2)
(B) The United States Mint will redeem unmixed $1 coins inscribed with a year before 1979 at $20.00 per pound.
(c)
(d)
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations for the recordation of copyright transfers and other documents. The proposed rule is intended to reduce the amount of time the Office requires to process certain types of documents submitted for recordation and help to alleviate remitter concerns regarding the receipt of documents for processing. To these ends, the Office is proposing to amend the regulations to encourage remitters to include a cover sheet with the documents they submit for processing; allow remitters to submit long title lists in electronic format; and provide remitters with the option to request return receipts that acknowledge that the Office has received a submission. The Office invites public comment on the proposed rule.
Written comments are due on or before August 15, 2014, at 11:59 p.m.
All comments shall be submitted electronically. A comment submission page is posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
Since 1870, the Copyright Office has recorded documents pertaining to works under copyright, such as assignments, licenses, and grants of security interests. The process of recordation entails (1) receiving copyright-related documents from remitters for recordation; (2) reviewing the documents to ensure they are eligible for recordation; (3) indexing information contained in the documents for the public record; (4) making copies of the documents so they are available for public inspection; and (5) returning documents marked as recorded to remitters. Congress has encouraged the submission of documents for recordation by providing certain legal entitlements as a consequence of recordation. For instance, recordation provides constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document when certain conditions are met.
Over the past several years, the Copyright Office has sought public input on technological upgrades to the recordation function.
In response to these concerns, the Office is currently developing a strategic plan for the improvement of both recordation services and the quality of resulting information provided to the public.
The first change to the Copyright Office's regulations set forth in this proposed rule is purely administrative. The Office currently provides an optional Recordation Document Cover Sheet (Form DCS) to assist with processing.
Currently, recordation specialists must review paper documents and manually transcribe selected information from the documents into an electronic format to permit indexing in the Office's Public Catalog database. Among the information that must be transcribed are the titles of copyrighted works associated with the document submitted for recordation, which are typically presented in a list appended to the document, referred to informally as a “title appendix.” A title appendix associated with a document can include hundreds, or even thousands, of titles. At present, long processing times associated with document recordation stem in large part from manual entry of these titles.
To speed processing and clear the current backlog of large title entries, the Office proposes a rule to permit (but not require) the submission of title appendices in electronic format, in addition to paper format, where the total titles in a submission number 100 or more. This includes the situation where multiple title lists associated with a document contain, in the aggregate, 100 or more titles. The proposed electronic title submission rule will be added to subsection 201.4(c), which will be retitled “Document submission contents and process.”
Under the proposed rule, the list of titles set forth in the paper submission must be submitted in a table in Excel (.xls) format, or an equivalent electronic format approved by the Office. The electronic entries may only contain letters, numbers, and printable characters that appear in the ASCII 128-character set. Each table must contain four columns respectively entitled Article, Title, Authorship Information, and Registration Number(s). Each title and its corresponding information must appear in a separate row of the electronic table:
In English: A, An, The
In Spanish: Un, Una, El, La, Lo, Las, Los
In French: L' (as in “L'Ecole”), Le, La, Les, Un, Une
In German: Der, Die, Das, Einer, Eine, Ein
For example, if the title of the work is “A Hard Day's Night,” the Article field should have the word “A”; similarly, if the title of the work is “The Fly,” this field should have the word “The.” If the title does not begin with an article identified above, the column should be included and this field should remain blank. Note that the words “These,” “Those,” “Some,” and “Any” are not considered articles and are not to be separated. In addition, the proposed rule does not require that remitters separate out articles in languages other than the ones listed.
The electronic list must be stored on a compact disc, flash drive, or other digital storage medium approved by the
By allowing remitters the option of submitting title appendices in electronic format, the Office will eliminate inefficiencies associated with the manual transcription of title information from paper to electronic format, thus significantly reducing the time and labor spent on creating these records, cutting down on inaccuracies, and providing a shorter wait time for remitters to receive their recorded documents and certificates of recordation.
The proposed rule permits electronic submission only in cases where there are 100 or more titles associated with a document. This is because the steps required to process shorter title appendices could actually take longer than processing them in the ordinary course. The Office believes that electronic submission will prove more efficient only when indexing 100 or more titles.
The Office has also considered how to handle any discrepancies between a paper document and the electronically formatted titles accompanying that paper document. In this regard, the Office has weighed the need for an accurate public record against the need to process large title submissions in a timely fashion and has come to a preliminary conclusion that the burden of creating an accurate record for the purposes of indexing in the Public Catalog must be placed on the remitter. The Copyright Office does not intend to cross-check electronic lists of titles against paper title appendices.
The Office notes that there may be legal consequences that flow from a remitter's failure to submit an accurate electronic list of titles. For example, the Copyright Act provides that recordation of a document gives “all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document, but only if . . . the document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title or registration number of the work.” 17 U.S.C. 205(c). Since the Office will be relying on the electronic list of titles for purposes of indexing submitted documents, inaccuracies in such electronic lists could affect the ability to later claim that the public had constructive notice of the facts in the document. Thus, the omission of a title from the electronic list could negate constructive notice with respect to that title, even if the title appears in the paper document that is recorded, because the title would not be indexed. At the same time, if a title appears in the electronic list but is not included in the paper document that is actually recorded, the paper document will control.
An additional consideration is that, under the statute, constructive notice can be provided where the document would be revealed “by a reasonable search under the title or
Remitters should thus ensure that the electronic list of titles fully and accurately reflects the titles contained in the paper document. If an electronic submission is inconsistent with the information contained in the paper document, such discrepancies will result in corresponding inaccuracies in the Public Catalog, and the remitter will bear the legal consequences of such inaccuracies.
Many remitters have expressed to the Copyright Office their concern that after they submit their documents for recordation, it may take several months or longer before they receive any word on the status of their submission. The Office recognizes the benefits of the Office's acknowledgment of receipt of a submission, even if the submission awaits processing. The Office thus proposes a new, optional receipt confirmation system under which a remitter may request that the Office provide a return receipt. Remitters seeking a return receipt must complete and enclose the required two copies of Form DCS, making sure to check the box (to be added to the form) indicating that they want a return receipt. In addition, they must include a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope in the package. Upon opening the package, the Office will attach a date-stamped return receipt to one of the cover sheets and mail it back to the remitter via the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.
It is important to realize that a return receipt will establish only that the Office has received a submission as of the date indicated, and will not establish that a document is eligible for recordation, or provide a date of recordation. Only the certificate of recordation will provide the date of recordation. At this time, the Office will provide return receipts free of charge.
Copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office proposes to amend part 201 to Chapter II of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
(b)
(c)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Consist of a table contained in an electronic file in Excel (.xls) format or an equivalent electronic format approved by the Office;
(B) include only letters, numbers, and printable characters that appear in the ASCII 128-character set;
(C) include four columns respectively entitled, from left to right, Article, Title, Authorship Information, and Registration Number(s);
(D) list each title on a separate row of the electronic table, and include the following information for each title in the appropriate column, as applicable:
(
English: A, An, The
Spanish: Un, Una, El, La, Lo, Las, Los
French: L', Le, La, Les, Un, Une
German: Der, Die, Das, Einer, Eine, Ein
(
(
(
(iii)
(iv)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve changes to North Dakota's State Implementation Plan (SIP). On January 23, 2013, the Governor of North Dakota submitted to EPA revisions to several chapters of the North Dakota SIP. These revisions included the removal of subsections 33–15–03–04.4 and 33–15–05–01.2.a(l) of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC). In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of these subsections from the SIP because such removal is consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The removal will correct certain deficiencies related to the correct treatment of excess emissions from sources. EPA will address the remaining
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0173, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email:
•
•
•
Adam Clark, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7104,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The words
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
In accordance with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain enforceable emission limitations and, in accordance with the definition of “emission limitations” in CAA section 302(k), such emission limitations must be continuous. In addition, under CAA section 304(a), any person may bring a civil action against any person alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of an “emission standard or limitation” under the CAA. For the purposes of section 304, “emission standard or limitation” is defined in section 304(f) and includes SIP emission limitations. Thus, SIP emission limitations can be enforced in a section 304 action and so must be capable of enforcement. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that excess emissions
NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 created exemptions from a number of cross-referenced opacity limits “where the limits specified in this article cannot be met because of operations and processes such as, but not limited to, oil field service and drilling operations, but only so long as it is not technically feasible to meet said specifications.” NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(1) created an implicit exemption from particulate matter emissions limits for “temporary operational breakdowns or cleaning of air pollution equipment” if the source met certain conditions. Because these provisions contemplated outright exemptions from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limits, they were inconsistent with CAA requirements. In addition, NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 had inherent ambiguities that called into question its basic enforceability.
On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club filed with the EPA Administrator a petition for rulemaking concerning states' treatment of excess emissions from sources during SSM events (the Petition).
On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed rulemaking in which (among other things) we proposed to grant the Petition as it pertained to NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l). 78 FR 12460, 12531–12532. We concurred with Sierra Club's assertion that both provisions are inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. In our proposed rulemaking, we also proposed to find that NDAC 33–15–03–04.3 was inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. We proposed to find that all three of these provisions (NDAC 33–15–03–04.3, NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l)) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and concurrently proposed to issue a SIP call for all three provisions.
On January 23, 2013, the Governor of North Dakota submitted to EPA SIP revisions that included the removal of both NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l), as well as additional revisions to the North Dakota SIP. We will act on the remaining revisions from the January 23, 2013 submittal (aside from NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l)) in separate rulemakings. The January 23, 2013 submittal did not revise NDAC 33–15–03–04.3.
Under CAA section 107, states have the primary authority and responsibility to develop and implement SIPs that provide for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and meet other CAA requirements. Under CAA section 110(k), EPA has the authority and responsibility to review state SIP submissions to assure that they meet all applicable requirements. CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that (among other things) would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA.
In this instance, the State has elected to revise its existing SIP by removing two previously approved provisions that created exemptions from otherwise applicable emission limits in the SIP. As noted, the State removed both NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l) from the North Dakota SIP in its January 23, 2013 submission.
We consider the removal of these provisions sufficient to correct the inadequacies contained within them and to be consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
We are proposing to approve the removal of NDAC 33–15–03–04.4 and NDAC 33–15–05–01.2.a(l) from the North Dakota SIP, as reflected in the January 23, 2013 SIP submission.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 USC 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Lead (Pb), which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0271, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs.
On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS (hereafter the 2008 Pb NAAQS). The level of the primary (health-based) standard was revised to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states typically have met many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. Nevertheless, pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states have to review and revise, as appropriate, their existing SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA issued guidance on October 14, 2011, addressing the infrastructure SIP elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
EPA is acting upon the January 13, 2012, SIP submission from Kansas that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
EPA Region 7 received Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb standard on January 13, 2012. This SIP submission became complete as a matter of law on July 13, 2012. EPA has reviewed Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission and the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Kansas' SIP. Below is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
The State of Kansas' statutes and regulations authorize the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. KDHE's statutory authority can be found in chapter 65, article 30 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), otherwise known as the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3003 places the responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary of Health and Environment (“Secretary”). The Secretary in turn administers the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment within KDHE. Air pollution is defined in KSA section 65–3002(c) as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as is, or tends significantly to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, or would contribute to the formation of regional haze.
KSA section 65–3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing the Kansas Air Quality Act. It also gives the Secretary the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the State of Kansas as a whole or for any part thereof. KSA section 65–3005(a)(12). The Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, in furtherance of a policy to implement laws and regulations consistent with those of the Federal government. KSA section 65–3005(b). The Secretary also has the authority to establish emission control requirements as appropriate to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3010(a).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, SIP submission.
To address this element, KSA section 65–3007 provides the enabling authority necessary for Kansas to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). This provision gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. Furthermore, the Secretary has the authority to require such air contaminant sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impacts of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary can also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3007(b).
Kansas has an air quality monitoring network operated by KDHE and local air quality agencies that collects air quality data that are compiled, analyzed, and reported to EPA. KDHE's Web site contains up-to-date information about air quality monitoring, including a description of the network and information about the monitoring of Pb.
Within KDHE, the Bureau of Air and Radiation implements these requirements. Along with its other duties, the Monitoring and Planning Section collects air monitoring data,
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, SIP submission.
(1)
KSA section 65–3018 gives the Secretary or the Director of the Division of Environment the authority to impose a monetary penalty against any person who, among other things, either violates any order or permit issued under the Kansas Air Quality Act, or violates any provision of the Act or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. Section 65–3028 provides for criminal penalties for knowing violations.
(2)
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb standard with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure SIP for element (C) (
(3)
In a previous action on June 20, 2013, EPA determined that Kansas has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements related to all other required pollutants (78 FR 37126). Therefore, Kansas has adopted all necessary provisions to ensure that its PSD program covers the requirements for the Pb NAAQS and all other regulated NSR pollutants.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012 SIP submission.
With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing a significant degree of travel in the ambient air. No complex chemistry is needed to form Pb or Pb compounds in the ambient air; therefore, concentrations of Pb are typically highest near Pb sources. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a source increases. According to EPA's report entitled
Kansas has one Pb nonattainment area with sources of Pb emissions over 0.5 tons per year (tpy). The Pb nonattainment area is identified as portions of Saline County, Kansas, and the sources contributing to nonattainment are Exide Technologies and Metlcast. These sources are located in central Kansas and therefore do not have an impact on any other state.
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Kansas' satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 2008 Pb NAAQS have been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA also notes that the proposed action in that section related to PSD is consistent with the proposed approval related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to short distances from the source and most, if not all Pb stationary sources are located at distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts would be negligible. Although Pb can be a component of coarse and fine particles, Pb generally comprises a small fraction of coarse and fine particles. Furthermore, when evaluating the extent that Pb could impact visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts were found to be insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10%).
Nevertheless, Kansas meets this requirement through EPA's final approval of Kansas' regional haze plan on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754). In this final approval, EPA determined that the Kansas SIP met requirements of the CAA, for states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this aspect of the submission.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.
Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. The Kansas regulations address abatement of the effects of interstate pollution. For example, KAR 28–19–350(k)(2) “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” requires KDHE, prior to issuing any construction permit for a proposed new major source or major modification, to notify EPA, as well as: Any state or local air pollution control agency having jurisdiction in the air quality control region in which the new or modified installation will be located; the chief executives of the city and county where the source will be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency having jurisdiction where the source will be located; and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.
Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Kansas with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Prongs 1 through 4 and 110 (a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Kansas' statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 2008 Pb NAAQS, primarily in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Neither Kansas nor EPA has identified any legal impediments in the state's SIP to implementation of the NAAQS.
With respect to adequate resources, KDHE asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The Kansas statutes provide the Secretary the authority to employ technical, professional and other staff to effectuate the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act from funds appropriated and available for these purposes.
With respect to funding, the Kansas Legislature annually approves funding and personnel resources for KDHE to implement the air program. The annual budget process provides a periodic update that enables KDHE and the local agencies to adjust funding and personnel needs. In addition, the Kansas statutes grant the Secretary authority to establish various fees for sources, to cover any and all parts of administering the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act. For example, KSA section 65–3008(f) grants the Secretary authority to fix, charge, and collect fees for construction approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65–3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. These emission fees, along with any moneys recovered by the state under the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act, are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas also uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
(2) Conflict of interest provisions—section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
On June 20, 2013, EPA approved Kansas' SIP revision addressing the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37126). For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Kansas meets the section 128 requirements, see EPA's April 17, 2013, proposed approval of Kansas' 1997 and 2006 PM
(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, KSA section 65–3005(a)(8) grants the Secretary authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their own jurisdictions and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdictions. In fact, KSA section 65–3016 allows for cities and/or counties (or combinations thereof) to form local air quality conservation authorities. These authorities will then have the authority to enforce air quality rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary and adopt any additional rules, regulations and standards as needed to maintain satisfactory air quality within their jurisdictions.
At the same time, the Kansas statutes also retain authority in the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the state air pollution control law. KSA section 65–3003 specifically places responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary. The Secretary shall then administer the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment. As an example of this retention of authority, KSA section 65–3016 only allows for the formation of local air quality conservation authorities with the approval of the Secretary. In addition, although these authorities can adopt additional air quality rules, regulations and standards, they may only do so if those rules, regulations and standards are in compliance with those set by the Secretary for that area. Currently, KDHE oversees the following local agencies that implement that Kansas Air Quality Act: The City of Wichita Office of Environmental Health, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, Shawnee County Health Agency, and Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas Public Health Department.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
To address this element, KSA section 65–3007 gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. The Secretary shall require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. Furthermore, the Secretary may require these emissions sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act.
In addition, KAR 28–19–12(A) “Measurement of Emissions” states that KDHE may require any person responsible for the operation of an emissions source to make or have tests made to determine the rate of contaminant emissions from the source whenever it has reason to believe that existing emissions exceed limitations specified in the Kansas air quality regulations. At the same time, KDHE may also conduct its own tests of emissions from any source. KAR 28–19–12(B). The Kansas regulations also require that all Class I operating permits include requirements for monitoring of emissions (KAR 28–19–512(a)(9) “Class I Operating Permits; Permit Content”).
Kansas makes all monitoring reports (as well as compliance plans and compliance certifications) submitted as part of a construction permit or Class I or Class II permit application publicly available.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
Nevertheless, KSA section 65–3012(a) states that whenever the Secretary receives evidence that emissions from an air pollution source or combination of sources presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or to the environment, he or she may issue a temporary order directing the owner or operator, or both, to take such steps as necessary to prevent the act or eliminate the practice. Upon issuance of this temporary order, the Secretary may then commence an action in the district court to enjoin these acts or practices.
KAR 28–19–56 “Episode Criteria” allows the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. KAR 28–19–57 “Emission Reduction Requirements” imposes restrictions on emission sources in the event one of these three air pollution episode statuses is declared.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the Kansas SIP adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
KSA section 65–3005(b) specifically states that it is the policy of the state of Kansas to regulate the air quality of the state and implement laws and regulations that are applied equally and uniformly throughout the state and consistent with that of the Federal government. Therefore, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Federal CAA. KSA 65–3005(b)(1).
As discussed previously, KSA section 65–3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing and consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. The Secretary also has the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the state of Kansas or any part thereof. KSA section 65–3005(a)(12). Therefore, as a whole, the Secretary has the authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to any necessary changes in the NAAQS.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has adequate authority to address section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. KSA section 65–3005(a)(14) grants the Secretary the authority to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the state, local governments, other states, interstate and interlocal agencies, and the Federal government. Furthermore, as noted earlier in the discussion on section 110(a)(2)(D), Kansas' regulations require that whenever it receives a construction permit application for a new source or a modification, KDHE must notify state and local air pollution control agencies, as well as regional land use planning agencies and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.
(2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
As discussed previously with element (G), KAR 28–19–56 “Episode Critera” contains provisions that allow the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency status whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. Any of these emergency situations can also be declared by the Secretary even in the absence of issuance of a high air pollution potential advisory or equivalent advisory from a local weather bureau meteorologist, if deemed necessary to protect the public health. In the event of such an emergency situation, public notification will occur through local weather bureaus.
In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues is provided on a KDHE Web site,
(3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the CAA, relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the Kansas SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the
Nevertheless, as noted above in section D, EPA has already approved Kansas' Regional Haze Plan and determined that it met the CAA requirements for preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility caused by air pollutants.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has met the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the state and is therefore proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
Kansas has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. KSA section 65–3005(a)(9) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage and conduct studies, investigations and research relating to air contamination and air pollution and their causes, effects, prevention, abatement and control. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, the regulations at KAR 28–19–350 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” incorporate EPA modeling guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for the purposes of demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with a NAAQS.
The Kansas statutes and regulations also give KDHE the authority to require that modeling data be submitted for analysis. KSA section 65–3007(b) grants the Secretary the authority to require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions or any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary may also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. These reports could include information as may be required by the Secretary concerning the location, size, and height of contaminant outlets, processes employed, fuels used, and the nature and time periods or duration of emissions, and such information as is relevant to air pollution and available or reasonably capable of being assembled. KSA section 65–3007(c).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the adequate infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
KSA section 65–3008(f) allows the Secretary to fix, charge, and collect fees for approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65–3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. Fees from the construction permits and approvals are deposited into the Kansas state treasury and credited to the state general fund. Emissions fees are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the Kansas state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas' Title V program, found at KAR 28–19–500 to 28–19–564, was approved by EPA on January 30, 1996 (61 FR 2938). EPA reviews the Kansas Title V program, including Title V fee structure, separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA from taking future action regarding Kansas' Title V program.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) are met and is proposing to approve this element of the January 13, 2012, submission.
KSA section 65–3005(a)(8)(A) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions and on a cooperative basis and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions on the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdiction. The Secretary also has the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with local governments. KSA section 65–3005(a)(14). He or she may enter into contracts and agreements with local governments as is necessary to accomplish the goals of the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3005(a)(16).
Currently, KDHE's Bureau of Air and Radiation has signed state and/or local agreements with the Department of Air Quality from the Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas; the Wichita Office of Environmental Health; the Shawnee County Health Department, the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment; and the Mid-America Regional Council. These agreements establish formal partnerships between the Bureau of Air and Radiation and these local agencies to work together to develop and annually update strategic goals, objectives and strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality.
In addition, as previously noted in the discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), Kansas' statutes and regulations require that KDHE consult with local political subdivisions for the purposes of carrying out its air pollution control responsibilities.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in the submission
EPA is proposing to approve the January 13, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission from Kansas which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As discussed in each applicable section of this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing action on section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D and on the visibility protection portion of section 110(a)(2)(J).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and(2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2008 Pb NAAQS are implemented in the state.
We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this 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 statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110 for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone (O
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0401, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
I. What is a Section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?
II. What are the applicable elements under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires, in part, that states make a SIP submission to EPA to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA after reasonable notice and public hearings. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that such infrastructure SIP submissions must address. SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP submissions are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs.
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The level of the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS (hereafter the 2008 O
For the 2008 O
EPA is acting upon the March 19, 2013 and May 9, 2013, SIP submissions from Kansas that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 O
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and New Source Review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
EPA Region 7 received Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
The State of Kansas' statutes and regulations authorize the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control regulations. KDHE's statutory authority can be found in chapter 65, article 30 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), otherwise known as the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3003 places the responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary of Health and Environment (“Secretary”). The Secretary in turn administers the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment within KDHE. Air pollution is defined in KSA section 65–3002(c) as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as is, or tends significantly to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, or would contribute to the formation of regional haze.
KSA section 65–3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing the Kansas Air Quality Act. It also gives the Secretary the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the State of Kansas as a whole or for any part thereof. KSA section 65–3005(a)(12). The Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, in furtherance of a policy to implement laws and regulations consistent with those of the Federal government. KSA section 65–3005(b). The Secretary also has the authority to establish emission control requirements as appropriate to facilitate the accomplishment of the purposes of the
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
To address this element, KSA section 65–3007 provides the enabling authority necessary for Kansas to fulfill the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). This provision gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. Furthermore, the Secretary has the authority to require such air contaminant sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impacts of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary can also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. KSA section 65–3007(b).
Kansas has an air quality monitoring network operated by KDHE and local air quality agencies that collects air quality data that are compiled, analyzed, and reported to EPA. KDHE's Web site contains up-to-date information about air quality monitoring, including a description of the network and information about the monitoring of O
Within KDHE, the Bureau of Air and Radiation implements these requirements. Along with its other duties, the Monitoring and Planning Section collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports the data. The data is then used to develop the appropriate regulatory or outreach strategies to reduce air pollution.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
(1)
KSA section 65–3018 gives the Secretary or the Director of the Division of Environment the authority to impose a monetary penalty against any person who, among other things, either violates any order or permit issued under the Kansas Air Quality Act, or violates any provision of the Act or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder. Section 65–3028 provides for criminal penalties for knowing violations.
(2)
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' infrastructure SIP for the 2008 O
(3)
In a previous action on June 20, 2013, EPA determined that Kansas has a program in place that meets all the PSD requirements related to all other required pollutants (78 FR 37126). Therefore, Kansas has adopted all necessary provisions to ensure that its PSD program covers the requirements for the O
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
In this notice, we are not proposing to take any actions related to the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2. At this time, there is no SIP submission from Kansas relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 O
With respect to the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3, EPA notes that Kansas' satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas of the 2008 O
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, and an approved SIP addressing regional haze.
Kansas meets this requirement through EPA's final approval of Kansas' regional haze plan on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754). In this final approval, EPA determined that the Kansas SIP met requirements of the CAA, for states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve this aspect of the submission.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also requires that the SIP insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively.
Section 126(a) of the CAA requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the state. The Kansas regulations address abatement of the effects of interstate pollution. For example, KAR 28–19–350(k)(2) “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” requires KDHE, prior to issuing any construction permit for a proposed new major source or major modification, to notify EPA, as well as: any state or local air pollution control agency having jurisdiction in the air quality control region in which the new or modified installation will be located; the chief executives of the city and county where the source will be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency having jurisdiction where the source will be located; and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.
Section 115 of the CAA authorizes EPA to require a state to revise its SIP under certain conditions to alleviate international transport into another country. There are no final findings under section 115 of the CAA against Kansas with respect to any air pollutant. Thus, the state's SIP does not need to include any provisions to meet the requirements of section 115.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 O
(1) Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to establish that they have adequate personnel, funding and authority. With respect to adequate authority, we have previously discussed Kansas' statutory and regulatory authority to implement the 2008 O
With respect to adequate resources, KDHE asserts that it has adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The Kansas statutes provide the Secretary the authority to employ technical, professional and other staff to effectuate the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act from funds appropriated and available for these purposes.
With respect to funding, the Kansas Legislature annually approves funding and personnel resources for KDHE to implement the air program. The annual budget process provides a periodic update that enables KDHE and the local agencies to adjust funding and personnel needs. In addition, the Kansas statutes grant the Secretary authority to establish various fees for sources, to cover any and all parts of administering the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act. For example, KSA section 65–3008(f) grants the Secretary authority to fix, charge, and collect fees for construction approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65–3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. These emission fees, along with any moneys recovered by the state under the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act, are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas also uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement the SIP.
(2) Conflict of interest provisions—section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each state SIP meet the requirements of section 128, relating to representation on state boards and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. Section 128(a)(1) requires that any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA must have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any “significant portion” of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under the CAA. Section 128(a)(2) requires that members of such a board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
On June 20, 2013, EPA approved Kansas' SIP revision addressing the section 128 requirements (78 FR 37126). For a detailed discussion on EPA's analysis of how Kansas meets the section 128 requirements, see EPA's April 17, 2013, proposed approval of Kansas' 1997 and 2006 PM
(3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies to carry out portions of the plan, KSA section 65–3005(a)(8) grants the Secretary authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their own jurisdictions and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions of the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdictions. In fact, KSA section 65–3016 allows for cities and/or counties (or combinations thereof) to form local air quality conservation authorities. These authorities will then have the authority to enforce air quality rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary and adopt any additional rules, regulations and standards as needed to maintain satisfactory air quality within their jurisdictions.
At the same time, the Kansas statutes also retain authority in the Secretary to carry out the provisions of the state air pollution control law. KSA section 65–3003 specifically places responsibility for air quality conservation and control of air pollution with the Secretary. The Secretary shall then administer the Kansas Air Quality Act through the Division of Environment. As an example of this retention of authority, KSA section 65–3016 only allows for the formation of local air quality conservation authorities with the approval of the Secretary. In addition, although these authorities can adopt additional air quality rules, regulations and standards, they may only do so if those rules, regulations and standards are in compliance with those set by the Secretary for that area. Currently, KDHE oversees the following local agencies that implement that Kansas Air Quality Act: The City of Wichita Office of Environmental Health, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, Shawnee County Health Agency, and Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas Public Health Department.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
To address this element, KSA section 65–3007 gives the Secretary the authority to classify air contaminant sources which, in his or her judgment, may cause or contribute to air pollution. The Secretary shall require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions, and any other parameters deemed necessary. Furthermore, the Secretary may require these emissions sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act.
In addition, KAR 28–19–12(A) “Measurement of Emissions” states that KDHE may require any person responsible for the operation of an emissions source to make or have tests made to determine the rate of contaminant emissions from the source whenever it has reason to believe that existing emissions exceed limitations specified in the Kansas air quality regulations. At the same time, KDHE may also conduct its own tests of emissions from any source. KAR 28–19–12(B). The Kansas regulations also require that all Class I operating permits include requirements for monitoring of emissions (KAR 28–19–512(a)(9) “Class I Operating Permits; Permit Content”).
Kansas makes all monitoring reports (as well as compliance plans and compliance certifications) submitted as part of a construction permit or Class I or Class II permit application publicly available.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
KSA section 65–3012(a) states that whenever the Secretary receives evidence that emissions from an air pollution source or combination of sources presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or to the environment, he or she may issue a temporary order directing the owner or operator, or both, to take such steps as necessary to prevent the act or eliminate the practice. Upon issuance of this temporary order, the Secretary may then commence an action in the district court to enjoin these acts or practices.
KAR 28–19–56 “Episode Criteria” allows the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health. KAR 28–19–57 “Emission Reduction Requirements” imposes restrictions on emission sources in the event one of these three air pollution episode statuses is declared.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 O
KSA section 65–3005(b) specifically states that it is the policy of the state of Kansas to regulate the air quality of the state and implement laws and regulations that are applied equally and uniformly throughout the state and consistent with that of the Federal government. Therefore, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to ensure that Kansas is in compliance with the provisions of the Federal CAA. KSA 65–3005(b)(1).
As discussed previously, KSA section 65–3005(a)(1) provides authority to the Secretary to adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations implementing and consistent with the Kansas Air Quality Act. The Secretary also has the authority to establish ambient air quality standards for the state of Kansas or any part thereof. KSA section 65–3005(a)(12). Therefore, as a whole, the Secretary has the authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to any necessary changes in the NAAQS.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
As noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
(1) With respect to interagency consultation, the SIP should provide a process for consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies. KSA section 65–3005(a)(14) grants the Secretary the authority to advise, consult and cooperate with other agencies of the state, local governments, other states, interstate and interlocal agencies, and the Federal government. Furthermore, as noted earlier in the discussion on section 110(a)(2)(D), Kansas' regulations require that whenever it receives a construction permit application for a new source or a modification, KDHE must notify state and local air pollution control agencies, as well as regional land use planning agencies and any state, Federal land manager, or Indian governing body whose lands will be affected by emissions from the new source or modification.
(2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in section 127, the infrastructure SIP should provide citations to regulations in the SIP requiring the air agency to regularly notify the public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded; advise the public of the health hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality.
As discussed previously with element (G), KAR 28–19–56 “Episode Critera” contains provisions that allow the Secretary to proclaim an air pollution alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution emergency status whenever he or she determines that the accumulation of air contaminants at any sampling location has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, threaten the public health.
In addition, information regarding air pollution and related issues is provided on a KDHE Web site,
(3) With respect to the applicable requirements of part C of the CAA, relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection, as noted in above under element (C), the Kansas SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. However, when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, these visibility and regional haze requirements under part C do not change. EPA believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements under part C as a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to element J after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Nevertheless, as noted above in section D, EPA has already approved Kansas' Regional Haze Plan and determined that it met the CAA requirements for preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility caused by air pollutants.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
Kansas has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. KSA section 65–3005(a)(9) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage and conduct studies, investigations and research relating to air contamination and air pollution and their causes, effects, prevention, abatement and control. As an example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of determining NAAQS compliance, the regulations at KAR 28–19–350 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality” incorporate EPA modeling guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for the purposes of demonstrating compliance or non-compliance with a NAAQS.
The Kansas statutes and regulations also give KDHE the authority to require that modeling data be submitted for analysis. KSA section 65–3007(b) grants the Secretary the authority to require air contaminant emission sources to monitor emissions, operating parameters, ambient impact of any source emissions or any other parameters deemed necessary. The Secretary may also require these sources to keep records and make reports consistent with the purposes of the Kansas Air Quality Act. These reports could include information as may be required by the Secretary concerning the location, size, and height of contaminant outlets, processes employed, fuels used, and the nature and time periods or duration of emissions, and such information as is relevant to air pollution and available or reasonably capable of being assembled. KSA section 65–3007(c).
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
KSA section 65–3008(f) allows the Secretary to fix, charge, and collect fees for approvals and permits (and the renewals thereof). KSA section 65–3024 grants the Secretary the authority to establish annual emissions fees. Fees from the construction permits and approvals are deposited into the Kansas state treasury and credited to the state general fund. Emissions fees are deposited into an air quality fee fund in the Kansas state treasury. Moneys in the air quality fee fund can only be used for the purpose of administering the Kansas Air Quality Act.
Kansas' Title V program, found at KAR 28–19–500 to 28–19–564, was approved by EPA on January 30, 1996 (61 FR 2938). EPA reviews the Kansas Title V program, including Title V fee structure, separately from this proposed action. Because the Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA from taking future action regarding Kansas' Title V program.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
KSA section 65–3005(a)(8)(A) gives the Secretary the authority to encourage local units of government to handle air pollution problems within their respective jurisdictions and on a cooperative basis and to provide technical and consultative assistance therefor. The Secretary may also enter into agreements with local units of government to administer all or part of the provisions on the Kansas Air Quality Act in the units' respective jurisdiction. The Secretary also has the authority to advise, consult, and cooperate with local governments. KSA section 65–3005(a)(14). He or she may enter into contracts and agreements with local governments as is necessary
Currently, KDHE's Bureau of Air and Radiation has signed state and/or local agreements with the Department of Air Quality from the Unified Government of Wyandotte County—Kansas City, Kansas; the Wichita Office of Environmental Health; the Shawnee County Health Department, the Johnson County Department of Health and Environment; and the Mid-America Regional Council. These agreements establish formal partnerships between the Bureau of Air and Radiation and these local agencies to work together to develop and annually update strategic goals, objectives and strategies for reducing emissions and improving air quality.
In addition, as previously noted in the discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), Kansas' statutes and regulations require that KDHE consult with local political subdivisions for the purposes of carrying out its air pollution control responsibilities.
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 O
EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submissions from Kansas which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 O
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in that submission or referenced in Kansas' SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 2008 O
We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
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 proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
• 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 statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting specific infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0140, by any of the following methods:
•
• Email:
• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a new 24-hour and a new annual NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM
The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, so-called “infrastructure” elements. To assist states, the EPA issued several guidance documents. On October 2, 2007, the EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM
On July 9, 2012, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted to the EPA a certification that Alaska's SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for multiple NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM
Previously, on March 29, 2011, Alaska submitted the “Alaska Interstate Transport of Pollution SIP” to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM
At this time, the EPA is acting on the Alaska submissions for 110(a)(2) required elements as they relate to the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed below:
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the applicable requirements of part D.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Alaska that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM
The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.
The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility
Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
The July 9, 2012, submission summarizes ADEC's statutory and regulatory authority to act on behalf of the State of Alaska in any matter pertaining to the state air quality control plan. The submission lists specific provisions of the Alaska Statute (AS) Title 46 Water, Air Energy and Environmental Conservation, Chapter 03 Environmental Conservation and Chapter 14 Air Quality Control; Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Title 18 Environmental Conservation (18 AAC 50); and the Alaska SIP. The specific sections are listed below, with a discussion of how the Alaska SIP meets the requirements. We note that on May 5, 2014, we proposed to approve a number of revisions to the Alaska SIP, including revisions to update the SIP to reflect changes to the NAAQS and Federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements associated with the NAAQS (79 FR 25533). Final action on this infrastructure SIP is contingent upon the EPA first taking final action on the May 5, 2014, proposed approval of those separately submitted revisions to the Alaska SIP to implement the NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting requirements. Final action on those SIP revisions will be addressed in a separate action.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.
The regulations cited by ADEC include statewide ambient air quality standards, major and minor permits, emission limits for specific sources, transportation conformity and fees. The relevant regulations are listed below:
• 18 AAC 50.005: Purpose and Applicability of Chapter.
• 18 AAC 50.010: Ambient Air Quality Standards.
• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference.
• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards Adopted by Reference.
• 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions.
• 18 AAC 50.050: Incinerator Emission Standards.
• 18 AAC 50.055: Industrial Processes and Fuel Burning Equipment.
• 18 AAC 50.060: Pulp Mills.
• 18 AAC 50.065: Open Burning.
• 18 AAC 50.070: Marine Vessel Visible Emission Standards.
• 18 AAC 50.075: Wood Fired Heating Devices Visible Emission Standards.
• 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air Quality Investigation.
• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction Permits.
• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.
• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.
• 18 AAC 50.400–18 AAC 50.499: User Fees.
• 18 AAC 50.502: Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection.
• 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit Application.
• 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit Review and Issuance.
• 18 AAC 50.544: Minor Permits: Content.
• 18 AAC 50.700–18 AAC 50.735: Conformity.
• 18 AAC 50.990: Definitions.
Alaska's major NSR program generally incorporates the Federal PSD and nonattainment NSR programs by reference into the Alaska SIP. The EPA most recently proposed approval of revisions to Alaska's major and minor NSR permitting programs on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). After finalizing the May 5, 2014, proposed action, the Alaska SIP will incorporate by reference Federal PSD requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 revised as of July 1, 2011.
With respect to Alaska's minor NSR permitting program, at 18 AAC 50.502–18 AAC 50.544, we have determined that the program regulates minor sources for purposes of the 1997 and 2006 PM
Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 PM
In this action, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance
In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing State rules with respect to director's discretion or variance provisions. The EPA believes that a number of states may have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (November 24, 1987, 52 FR 45109), and the EPA plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, we encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA upon request.
The submission also describes Memoranda of Understanding between ADEC and the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) to operate air quality control programs in their respective jurisdictions. ADEC's Air Non-Point Mobile Source Program and Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance Program work with MOA and FNSB to prepare Alaska's annual ambient air monitoring network plan, the most recent of which is the 2012 Alaska Air Monitoring Network Plan. Alaska collects and validates State and Local Air Monitoring Stations and Special Purpose Monitoring ambient air quality monitoring data and electronically reports these data to the EPA through the Air Quality System (AQS) on a quarterly basis. ADEC's revised “Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program” was adopted by reference into the State Air Quality Control Plan on October 29, 2010.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD and nonattainment NSR requirements.
• 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions.
• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction Permits.
• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.
• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.
• 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator.
• 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit: Application.
• 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit Review and Issuance.
• 18 AAC 50.542(c): Screening Ambient Air Quality Analysis.
The submission states that a violation of the prohibitions in the regulations above, or any permit condition, can result in civil actions (AS 46.03.760 “Civil action for pollution; damages”), administrative penalties (AS 46.03.761 “Administrative penalties”), or criminal penalties (AS 46.03.790 “Criminal penalties”). In addition, Alaska refers to regulations pertaining to compliance orders and enforcement proceedings found at 18 AAC Chapter 95 “Administrative Enforcement.” Finally, AS 46.03.820 “Emergency Powers” provides ADEC with emergency order authority where there is an imminent and present danger to health or welfare.
To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources, the State is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 1997 PM
The EPA originally approved Alaska's PSD/NSR program on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943), and we most recently proposed revisions on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). These revisions, among other things, update the Alaska PSD program for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment and unclassifiable areas. Previously on February 9, 2011, we approved a revision to the Alaska SIP to provide authority to implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). Alaska's PSD program generally incorporates by reference the Federal PSD program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. In some cases, ADEC adopted provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 rather than the comparable provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 because 40 CFR 51.166 was a better fit for a SIP-approved PSD program.
Upon finalization of the May 5, 2014, proposed approval of revisions to the Alaska PSD program, the State's Federally-approved SIP will incorporate by reference PSD requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 revised as of July 1, 2011. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD for the 1997 PM
We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, in
In addition, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
This decision also, at the EPA's request, vacated and remanded to the EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD PM
We note that the EPA recently amended its regulations to remove the vacated PM
Because of the vacatur of the EPA regulations as they relate to the PM
Turning to the minor NSR requirement, we have determined that the Alaska minor NSR program regulates minor sources for purposes of the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). As noted above, this action also does not address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires state SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of its air quality (prong 3), and adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which will interfere with any other state's required measures to protect visibility (prong 4).
To address whether emissions from sources in Alaska interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, the March 29, 2011, and July 9, 2012, submissions referenced the State's Federally-approved PSD program. The EPA originally approved Alaska's PSD program on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943), and most recently proposed approval of revisions on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). Upon finalization of our May 5, 2014, proposed approval of revisions to the Alaska PSD program, the Alaska SIP will incorporate by reference Federal PSD requirements as of July 1, 2011. We believe that our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Please see our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD (prong 3) for the 2006 PM
To address whether emissions from sources in Alaska interfere with any other state's required measures to protect visibility, Alaska's submissions reference the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, which was submitted to the EPA on March 29, 2011. The Alaska Regional Haze SIP addresses visibility impacts across states within the region. On February 14, 2013, the EPA approved the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for best available retrofit technology (78 FR 10546).
The EPA believes, as noted in the September 13, 2013, infrastructure guidance, that with respect to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, where a state's regional haze SIP has been approved as meeting all current obligations, a state may rely upon those provisions in support of its demonstration that it satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to visibility. Because the Alaska Regional Haze SIP was found to meet Federal requirements, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
At 18 AAC 50.306(b), Alaska's Federally-approved SIP incorporates by reference the general provisions of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2) to describe the public participation procedures for PSD permits, including requiring notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD. As a result, Alaska's PSD regulations provide for notice consistent with the requirements of the EPA PSD program. Alaska also has no pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each state to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the submission states that Alaska's regulations on “conflict of interest” are found in Title 2-Administration, Chapter 50 Alaska Public Offices Commission: Conflict of Interest, Campaign Disclosure, Legislative Financial Disclosure, and Regulations of Lobbying (2 AAC 50.010—2 AAC 50.920). Regulations concerning financial disclosure are found in Title 2, Chapter 50, Article 1—Public Official Financial Disclosure. There are no state air quality boards in Alaska, however, the ADEC commissioner, as an appointed official and the head of an executive agency, is required to file a financial disclosure statement annually by March 15th of each year with the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). These disclosures are publicly available through APOC's Anchorage office. Alaska's Public Officials Financial Disclosure Forms and links to Alaska's financial disclosure regulations can be found at the APOC Web site:
With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and assurances that the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the plan where the state has relied on local or regional government agencies, the submission states that ADEC insures local programs have adequate resources and documents this in the appropriate SIP section. Statutory authority for establishing local air pollution control programs is found at AS 46.14.400 “Local air quality control programs.”
The submission also states that ADEC provides technical assistance and regulatory oversight to the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and other local jurisdictions to ensure that the State Air Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives are satisfactorily carried out. ADEC has a Memorandum of Understanding with the MOA and FNSB that allows them to operate air quality control programs in their respective jurisdictions. The South Central Clean Air Authority has been established to aid the MOA and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in pursuing joint efforts to control emissions and improve air quality in the air-shed common to the two jurisdictions. In addition, ADEC indicates the department works closely with locals on nonattainment plans.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which
The submission references the State's Federally-approved PSD program originally approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943) and more recently approved on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). Ambient air quality and meteorological data that are collected for PSD purposes by stationary sources are reported to ADEC on a quarterly and annual basis.
The submission refers to the following statutory and regulatory provisions which provide authority and requirements for source emissions monitoring, reporting, and correlation with emission limits or standards:
• AS 46.14.140: Emission control permit program regulations.
• AS 46.14.180: Monitoring.
• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference.
• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards Adopted by Reference.
• 18 AAC 50.200: Information Requests.
• 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air Quality Investigation.
• 18 AAC 50.220: Enforceable test methods.
• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.
• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions.
Additionally, the State is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site
Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
The three major municipalities in Alaska (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau) also have ordinances, codes, or regulations that enable them to declare emergencies in the case of poor air quality due to forest fires, volcanoes, wood smoke or other air quality problem. ADEC is working with the FNSB to develop an Emergency Episode Contingency Plan for PM
Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection.
ADEC routinely coordinates with local governments, states, Federal land managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues including transportation conformity and regional haze, and provides notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Alaska regularly participates in regional planning processes including the Western Regional Air Partnership which is a voluntary partnership of states, tribes, Federal land managers, local air agencies and the EPA whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air quality issues in the West. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation with government officials for the 1997 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. ADEC is a partner in the EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs, which provide air quality information to the public for five major air pollutants regulated by the CAA: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Alaska also provides real-time air monitoring information to the public on the ADEC air quality Web site at
We are therefore proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 1997 PM
Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA originally approved Alaska's PSD program on
With respect to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we find that there is no new applicable requirement related to visibility triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 PM
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM
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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the 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 Alaska, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve changes to Wyoming's State Implementation Plan (SIP). On February 10, 2014, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) submitted to EPA revisions to the Wyoming SIP. These revisions included edits to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 3, section 2(d). In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the revisions of this provision into the SIP because the revisions are consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The revisions will correct certain deficiencies related to the correct treatment of excess emissions from sources. EPA will address the remaining revisions from Wyoming's February 10, 2014 submission in separate actions.
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0183, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Adam Clark, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–7104,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(vi) The words
(vii) The initials
(viii) The initials
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
In accordance with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain enforceable emission limitations and, in accordance with the definition of “emission limitations” in CAA section 302(k), such emission limitations must be continuous. In addition, under CAA section 304(a), any person may bring a civil action against any person alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of an “emission standard or limitation” under the CAA. For the purposes of section 304, “emission standard or limitation” is defined in section 304(f) and includes SIP emission limitations. Thus, SIP emissions limitations can be enforced in a section 304 action and so must be capable of enforcement. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that excess emissions during startup, shutdown, malfunctions (SSM) and other conditions are not violations of the applicable emission limitations are inconsistent with these fundamental requirements of the CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs.
WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d) created an exemption for particulate matter emissions in excess of a 30 percent opacity standard from diesel engines during startup, malfunction, and maintenance. Because this provision allowed exemptions from the otherwise applicable SIP emission limit, it was inconsistent with CAA requirements.
On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club filed with the EPA Administrator a petition for rulemaking concerning states' treatment of excess emissions from sources during SSM events (the Petition).
On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed rulemaking in which (among other things) we proposed to grant the Petition as it pertained to WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d). 78 FR 12460, 12533. We concurred with Sierra Club's assertion that this provision is inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. For this reason, we proposed to find that WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d) is substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and concurrently
On February 10, 2014, WDEQ submitted to EPA SIP revisions that included the removal of the problematic language in WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d), as well as updates to the State's incorporation by reference (IBR) of federal regulations. The State's IBR updates will be acted upon in a separate rulemaking.
Under CAA section 107, states have the primary authority and responsibility to develop and implement SIPs that provide for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and meet other CAA requirements. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k), EPA has the authority and responsibility to review state SIP submissions to assure that they meet all applicable requirements. CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that (among other things) would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. In this instance, the State has elected to revise its existing SIP by editing a previously approved provision that created exemptions from otherwise applicable emission limitations in the SIP.
The State made two edits to WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d). Notably, the sentence that read “This limitation shall not apply during a reasonable period of warmup following a cold start or where undergoing repairs and adjustment following malfunction” was struck from the provision.
We consider this change sufficient to correct the provision's inadequacy and to meet the requirements of the CAA.
Wyoming also added language to WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d) clarifying that the provision applies to both stationary and portable diesel engines. EPA finds no issue with this clarifying language and therefore proposes to approve this change as well.
We are proposing to approve the revisions to WAQSR Chapter 3, section 2(d) of the Wyoming SIP, as reflected in the State's February 10, 2014 submission.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 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 USC 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Secretary proposes to modify the Department of Education Acquisition Regulation (EDAR) in order to update it to accurately implement the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Department policies.
The Department must receive your comments on or before September 15, 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
Roscoe Price, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7172, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–4200. Telephone: (202) 245–6222 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.
The Department invites you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, the Department urges you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
The Department invites 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 these proposed regulations. 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 Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 7172, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under
The uniform regulation for the procurement of supplies and services by Federal Departments and Agencies, the FAR, was promulgated on September 19, 1983 (48 FR 42102). The FAR is codified in title 48, chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department promulgated the EDAR to implement the FAR on May 23, 1988 (53 FR 19119).
The EDAR (title 48, chapter 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 301 and the general authorization in FAR 1.301. The last revision of the EDAR was published in the
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory changes that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.
These proposed regulations would amend the EDAR as follows:
In subpart 3401.6, “Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities,” the proposed regulations would redesignate section 3401.670 as section 3401.604–70 and would further redesignate sections 3401.670–1, 3401.670–2, and 3401.670–3 as sections 3401.604–70.1, 3401.604–70.2, and 3401.604–70.3, respectively, to be consistent with the new FAR 1.604.
The Department proposes to add section 3431.205–70 to prescribe the use of clause 3452.231–70 (Food Costs) to prohibit the use of contract funds to procure food unless authorized by the Contracting Officer (CO) in advance. The Department proposes to add section 3431.205–71 to prescribe the use of clause 3452.231–71 (Travel Costs) to prohibit the use of contract funds to pay for noncontractor travel unless authorized by the Contracting Officer in advance.
The Department proposes to add section 3431.205–72 to prescribe the clause at 3452.231–72 (Clearance of Conferences/Meetings) that requires Department contractors arranging conferences on behalf of the Department to seek the services of the Department's Event Services office or agreement from that office that the services may be subcontracted.
The Department proposes to add sections 3432.201, 3432.703–3, and 3432.906 to identify the HCA as the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.201, 32.703–3(b), and 32.906(a), respectively. The Department proposes to add section 3432.006–2 to define the “Remedy Coordination Official.”
The Department proposes to add section 3432.902 to define “delivery date” as the date on which products and services are deemed received.
The other proposed changes would identify the appropriate officials that have been designated to make determinations under various subparts of FAR 32 and identify the appropriate official and procedure to report requests for payments based on fraud.
The Department proposes to add section 3433.103(f)(1) and 3433.103(f)(3) to identify the HCA as having responsibility for approving any determination to proceed with the contract award for protests filed and received before award and to continue performance after the receipt of an agency protest after award. We further clarify that in those cases where the Contracting Officer (CO) is also the HCA, the determination must be approved by the SPE. The Department proposes to add section 3433.104 to require contracting activities to seek guidance from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) before taking action in response to a GAO protest. The Department proposes to add section 3433.203 to identify the SPE as the agency head for the purposes of FAR 33.203(b).
The Department proposes to add section 3433.211 to require the Contracting Officer to obtain assistance, as appropriate, from OGC prior to issuing a final decision.
Additionally, the Department proposes to add subpart 3452.3, consisting of section 3452.301 (Solicitation provisions and contract clauses (Matrix)), a clause matrix.
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 these regulations 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 regulations 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 these proposed regulations are 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 associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity and create a barrier to contracting with the Department?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could the Department do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand and access?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed regulations would update the EDAR; they would not directly regulate any small entities. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
These proposed regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
These regulations are not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
In accordance with section 441 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the Secretary proposes to amend title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 34 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
An individual deviation from the FAR or the EDAR must be approved by the HCA.
A class deviation from the FAR or the EDAR must be approved by the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE).
(a) The HCA must submit to the SPE a written request for each deviation from the FAR or the EDAR. Each request for a deviation must include:
(1) The nature of the deviation requested, including whether it is an individual or class deviation.
(2) The FAR or EDAR regulation from which the deviation is requested.
(3) The circumstances under which the deviation would be used.
(4) The effect intended by the deviation.
(5) The expiration date recommended for the deviation.
(6) All pertinent documentation supporting the request.
(b) The Contracting Officer must include in the contract file a copy of each authorized deviation that pertains to the acquisition.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(d)(2)(ii)(B) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 3.104–7(d)(2)(ii)(B).
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.204.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.602.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.704.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.705.
(c) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.905.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.906.
5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 41 U.S.C. 3102.
The Contracting Officer must insert the clause at 3452.204–70, Maintenance and Retention of Government-Owned/Contractor-Held Federal Records, in all solicitations and contracts where contractors are in possession of Federal records.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 5.404–1(a).
(b) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 5.404–1(b).
5 U.S.C. 301; 41 U.S.C. 418(a) and (b); and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 6.202.
(b)(4) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 6.302–1(b)(4).
(d)(2) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 6.302–2(d)(2).
The authority to approve the determination prescribed in FAR 6.302–7(c) is reserved for the Secretary of Education.
The Competition Advocate for the Department and Contracts and Acquisitions Management (CAM) is the Deputy Director, CAM. The Competition Advocate for Federal Student Aid (FSA) is the Director, Strategic Initiatives.
5 U.S.C. 301.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 7.103.
5 U.S.C. 301, unless otherwise noted.
The Contracting Officer must insert the clause at 3452.208–71 (Printing) in all solicitations and contracts for services where printing is anticipated.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(a)(1) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.202(a)(1).
(b) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.206–1(b).
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.405(a).
(d)(3) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.405(d)(3).
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.405–1.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.405–2.
(c) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.406–1(c).
(d) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.407–1(d).
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 9.503.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(a) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 11.103(a).
(d) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 11.501(d).
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(g)(1) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 13.201(g)(1).
(a) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 13.305–3(a).
5 U.S.C. 301.
(c) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 14.404–1(c).
The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of making any determination called for by FAR 14.407–3.
The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of making any determination called for by FAR 14.407–4.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(e) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 15.204(e).
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(f) * * *
(2) The extension of the contract as a result of an earned award term period is affected by a bilateral contract modification.
31 U.S.C. 1535 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(b) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 17.104(b).
(c) Insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 3452.17–70, Evaluation of Options to Include Award Terms and 3452.17–71, Option to Extend the Term of an Award Term Contract, in solicitations and contracts when the conditions at FAR 3417.208(c) exist and the use of an Award Term incentive is contemplated.
(a) The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Management is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 17.602.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
(d) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 19.505.
When the Department has been unable to meet its goal for prime contractor awards in one or more socioeconomic categories in any of the last five fiscal years, the Contracting Officer may insert a clause substantially the same as 3452.219–70 in any procurement for a Commercial Item conducted under FAR Part 12 or 13 when the award is low price, technically acceptable.
(a) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 19.810.
(d) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 19.812(d).
5 U.S.C. 301 Subpart 3422.10—Service Contract Act of 1965, as Amended
(c) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.302(c).
(a) The Chief of the Contracting Office is responsible for conducting labor standards investigations as prescribed in FAR 22.406–8(a).
(d) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 22.406–8(d).
(b) The authority to suspend contract payments pursuant to FAR 22.406–9(b) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
(b)(1) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.604–2(b)(1).
(c) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.803(c).
(a)(1) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.807(a)(1).
Sections 3422.1002 and 3422.1002–1 [Designated as subpart 3422.10].
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.1305.
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.1310(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2).
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.1403.
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.1408.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(a) The authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.103(a) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
(a)(1) The authority to make the determinations prescribed in FAR 25.105(a)(1) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
(a)(1) The authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 25.202(a)(1) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
(b) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 25.204(b).
(a)(2)(iii) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 25.1001(a)(2)(iii).
5 U.S.C. 301.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 27.303.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(c) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 28.101–1(c).
(c) The HCA is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 28.106–6(c).
(g) Evidence of possible criminal or fraudulent activities by an individual surety must be referred to the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 28.203–7.
5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 41 U.S.C. 3102.
(a) The SPE is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 30.201–5(a) and (b).
5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); and 41 U.S.C. 3102.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 31.101.
(g)(3) The HCA is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 31.205–6(g)(3).
Insert the clause at 3452.231–70 (Food Costs) in solicitations and contracts that include meetings/conferences where personnel other than Federal or contractor employees will participate.
Insert the clause at 3452.231–71 (Travel Costs) in solicitations and contracts where meetings/conferences where personnel other than Federal or contractor employees will participate.
Insert the clause at 3452.231–72 (Clearance of Conferences/Meetings) in solicitations and contracts where meetings/conferences are contemplated to be arranged by the contractor.
5 U.S.C. 301.
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.006–1.
“Remedy Coordination Official” means the SPE.
(b) Department personnel must report immediately and in writing any apparent or suspected instance where the contractor's request for advance, partial, or progress payments is based on fraud. The report must be made to the Contracting Officer and the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The report must outline the events, acts, or conditions which indicate the apparent or suspected violation and include all pertinent documents. The Assistant Inspector General for Investigations must investigate, as appropriate. If appropriate, the Office of the Inspector General will provide a report to the SPE.
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.006–4.
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.114.
The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.201.
(b) The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 32.703–3(b).
(a)
5 U.S.C. 301.
(d)(4) The independent review as described in FAR 33.103(d)(4) must be performed by the Competition Advocate for the contracting activity.
(f)
(1) For protests filed with the Department and received before award, the contracting office must first obtain the advice of the Office of the General Counsel when determining to proceed with the contract award. The determination must be approved by the HCA. In those cases where the Contracting Officer is also the HCA, the determination must be approved by the SPE.
(3) For protests filed with the Department and received after award, the Contracting Officer must first obtain the advice of OGC before determining that continued performance is justified. The determination must be approved by the HCA. In those cases where the Contracting Officer is also the HCA, the determination must be approved by the SPE.
(a)
The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 33.203(b).
Prior to issuing a Contracting Officer's final decision, the Contracting Officer should obtain assistance, when appropriate, from the Office of the General Counsel.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(a) The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 34.003(a).
(b) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.003(c) and the acquisition executive for the purposes of OMB Circular No. A–109.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 34.005–6.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
The HCA is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 37.204.
The Contracting Officer must insert the clause at 3452.237–70 (Services of consultants) in all solicitations and resultant cost-reimbursement contracts for consultant services that do not provide services to FSA.
It is the Department's policy that all new service contracts be performance-based, with clearly defined deliverables and performance standards. Any deviations from this policy must be fully justified in writing and approved by the Departmental Department's Competition Advocate.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 20 U.S.C. 1018a.
5 U.S.C. 301.
The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 42.602(a).
(b) The HCA is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 42.703–2(b).
(b) The Contracting Officer must insert the clause at 3452.242–73 (Accessibility of meetings, conferences, and seminars to persons with disabilities) in all solicitations and contracts where conferences are contemplated.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(a) The SPE is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 44.302(a).
5 U.S.C. 301.
The Contracting Officer must insert the clause at 3452.247–70 (Foreign travel) in all solicitations and resultant cost reimbursement contracts where foreign travel is contemplated.
5 U.S.C. 301.
(a) The authority to grant exemptions prescribed in FAR 48.102(a), or to extend future contract savings or sharing pursuant to FAR 48.102(g), is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
The authority to determine exemptions prescribed in FAR 48.201(a)(6) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the HCA.
5 U.S.C. 301.
As prescribed in 3404.7001, insert the following clause:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(e) The contract term or ordering period requires bilateral modification to reflect the ATRB's decision to award and the contractor's agreement to accept an Award Term. If the contract term or ordering period has one year remaining, the operation of the contract Award Term feature will cease and the contract term or ordering period will not extend beyond the maximum term stated in the contract.
As prescribed in 3417.208(c), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
This solicitation includes four optional periods of performance and up to four award terms. In accordance with the clause at 3452.216.71, award terms must immediately follow the period in which the award term is earned, thereby pushing out remaining option periods each time an award term is earned. By identifying prices in Schedule B for periods of performance, the offeror agrees that subject prices apply to either the option periods of performance, or award terms, as appropriate.
Except when it is determined not to be in the Government's best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options and potential award term periods to the total price of the basic requirement. Evaluation of options and award terms will not obligate the Government to exercise the options, nor extend the award term if the conditions at EDAR 3416.470(f) apply.
As prescribed in 3419.70, insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
This clause is to be read in harmony with any other evaluation clause incorporated. Preference provided under this clause takes precedence and all other clauses for the evaluation of offers hereby incorporate the
In order to help meet its socioeconomic goals, Offerors are advised that the Department of Education has identified this acquisition as one that has an evaluation preference for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small businesses (SDVOSB). For evaluation purposes only, quotes received from HUBZone or SDVOSB small businesses will be reduced by 10 percent. Once reduced, all quotes or offers received as a result of this solicitation will be evaluated for award and award will be made to that offeror or quoter that offers the lowest evaluated price, technically acceptable solution.
As prescribed in 3431.205–70, insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
No food may be provided under this contract or in association with this contract unless consent is provided below. The cost of food under this contract is unallowable unless the contractor receives written consent from the Contracting Officer prior to the incurrence of the cost. If the contractor wishes to be reimbursed for a food cost, there must be a request in writing at least 21 days prior to the day that costs would be incurred. The contractor must include in its request the following: the purpose of the event at which the food will be served, why the food is integral to fulfill a Government requirement in the contract, and the proposed costs. The lack of a timely response from the Contracting Officer must not constitute constructive acceptance of the allowability of the proposed charge. Fill-in Consent is hereby given to the contractor to _____.
As prescribed in 3431.205–71, insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
No invitational travel (defined as: Official Government travel conducted by a non-Federal employee in order to provide a “Direct Service” [i.e., presenting on a topic, serving as a facilitator, serving on a Federal Advisory Committee Act, or advising in an area of expertise] to the Government) may be provided under this contract or in association with this contract unless consent is provided below. The cost of invitational travel under this contract is unallowable unless the contractor receives written consent from the Contracting Officer prior to the incurrence of the cost. If the contractor wishes to be reimbursed for a cost related to invitational travel, a request must be in writing at least 21 days prior to the day that costs would be incurred. The contractor must include in its request the following: Why the invitational travel cost is integral to fulfill a Government requirement in the contract, and the proposed cost that must be in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. The lack of a timely response from the Contracting Officer must not constitute constructive acceptance of the allowability of the proposed charge.
As prescribed in 3431.205–72, insert a provision substantially the same as the following:
Any hotel/venue contract that the Contractor negotiates must be reviewed by and receive concurrence from an Event Services Team member prior to final agreement. The Event Services staff can be contacted at (202) 401–3679 or
(a) The following matrix provides a summary of provisions and clauses contained in the EDAR and their appropriate use. For each provision or clause listed, the matrix provides—
(1) Whether incorporation by reference is or is not authorized (see FAR 52.102);
(2) The section of the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) in which it is to be located, if it is used in an acquisition that is subject to the UCF;
(3) Its number;
(4) The citation of the EDAR text that prescribes its use; and
(5) Its title.
(b) Because the matrix does not provide sufficient information to determine the applicability of a provision or clause in the “required-when-applicable” and “optional” categories, contracting officers must refer to the EDAR text (cited in the matrix) that prescribes its use and the specific circumstances of the requirement being procured.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
NMFS extends for 15 days the comment period on the proposed rule to implement special management zones for five Delaware artificial reefs.
The deadline for written comments on the proposed rule published on June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35141), is extended from August 4, 2014, to August 19, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified NOAA–NMFS–2014–0060, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the Special Management Zones measures are available from Paul Perra, NOAA/NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The Special Management Zone measures document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Paul Perra, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9153.
The Delaware Fish and Wildlife Department (DFW) requested that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council designate five artificial reef sites, currently permitted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as Special management Zones (SMZs) under the regulations implementing the Council's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The SMZ request noted that the DFW has received complaints from hook-and-line anglers regarding fouling of their fishing gear in commercial pots and lines on ocean reef sites for more than 10 years. It also noted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Sportfish Restoration Program had notified DFW that these gear conflicts are not consistent with the objectives of the Sportfish Restoration Program, which provides funding for the building and maintenance of the artificial reefs. In order to comply with the goals of the Sportfish Restoration Program, the FWS is requiring that state artificial reef programs be able to limit gear conflicts by state regulations in state waters or by SMZs for sites in the EEZ.
After considering the DFW request, the Council recommended that all five artificial reefs be established as SMZs through a regulatory amendment. The action, as proposed, would allow only hook-and-line and spear fishing (including the taking of fish by hand) in the artificial reef designated areas, and these measures should be implemented with a 500-yard (457.2-m) enforcement buffer around each artificial reef site. In response to the Council's recommendation, NMFS developed a Draft Environmental Assessment and a proposed rule to implement the SMZs measures, as recommended by the Council, published in the
Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are managed jointly by the Council and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The comment period on the proposed rule is scheduled to close on August 4, 2014, the day before the start of the next meeting of the Commission, and a week before the next Council meeting. In order to provide further opportunity for the Commission and Council to formulate comments, and give more opportunity for the public to review and provide comments on the proposed rule to implement SMZs for five Delaware artificial reefs, NMFS is extending the comment period on the proposed rule until August 19, 2014.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payment rates for meals and snacks served in child care centers, outside-school-hours care centers, at-risk afterschool care centers, and adult day care centers; the food service payment rates for meals and snacks served in day care homes; and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The adjustments contained in this notice are made on an annual basis each July, as required by the laws and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
These rates are effective from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.
Tina Namian, Branch Chief, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1206, Alexandria, Virginia 22302–1594, 703–305–2590.
The terms used in this notice have the meanings ascribed to them in the Child and Adult Care Food Program regulations, 7 CFR part 226.
Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). These rates are in effect during the period, July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.
As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. In accordance with this mandate, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) last published the adjusted national average payment rates for centers, the food service payment rates for day care homes, and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, on July 26, 2013, in the
The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the
Payments for breakfast served are:
Payments for lunch or supper served are:
Payments for snack served are:
Payments for breakfast served are:
Payments for lunch or supper served are:
Payments for snack served are:
Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home are:
The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.
The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.19 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2013 to May 2014, (from 242.642 in May 2013, as previously published in the
The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 2.66 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2013 to May 2014, (from 233.302 in May 2013, as previously published in the
The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 2.13 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2013 to May 2014, (from 232.945 in May 2013, as previously published in the
The total amount of payments available to each State agency for distribution to institutions participating in CACFP is based on the rates contained in this notice.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.
CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3518).
Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)).
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces the annual adjustments to the “national
These rates are effective from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.
Rosemary O'Connell, Branch Chief, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1206, Alexandria, VA 22302; or phone (703) 305–2590.
For the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program is 20.30 cents. This reflects an increase of 13.45 percent in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2013 to May 2014 (from a level of 221.6 in May 2013, as previously published in the
As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.
To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.
As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.
The following specific section 4, section 11 and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States.
In school food authorities which served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2012–13, payments are:
School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 6 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.
For schools “not in severe need” the payments are:
For schools in “severe need” the payments are:
The following chart illustrates the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including “severe need” schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Special Milk Programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, No. 10.553 and No. 10.556, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V, and the final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983).
Sections 4, 8, 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1757, 1759a, 1766a) and sections 3 and 4(b) of the Child Nutrition Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1772 and 42 U.S.C. 1773(b)).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to re-establish an advisory committee.
The Secretary of Agriculture intends to re-establish the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (Council). In accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Council is being re-established to continue: (1) Developing a National Urban and Community Forestry action plan in accordance with Section 9(g)(3)(A–F) of the Act; (2) evaluating the implementation of the plan; (3) developing criteria; and (4) submitting recommendations for the Forest Service's National Urban and Community Forestry Cost-share Grant Program as required by Section 9(f)(1–2) of the Act. The Council is necessary and in the public interest.
Nancy Stremple, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry, address: Yates Building, 3NW, Mail Stop 1151, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250 or telephone: 202–205–7829. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App 2), Section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, as amended by Title XII, Section 1219 of Public Law 101–624 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 2105g), and with the concurrences of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Secretary of Agriculture intends to re-establish the Council. The Council is a statutory advisory committee. The Council operates under the provisions of FACA and will report to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service.
The purpose of the Council is to provide advice on urban and community forestry and related natural resources and make recommendations on how USDA can tailor its programs to better serve the needs of the urban and community forestry community of practice. The Council will perfom the following tasks listed above in the “Summary Section”.
The Council will be comprised of 15 members who provide a balanced and broad representation within each of the following interests:
(1) Two members representing national nonprofit forestry and conservation citizen organizations;
(2) Three members, one each representing State, county, and city and town governments;
(3) One member representing the forest products, nursery, or related industries;
(4) One member representing urban forestry, landscape, or design consultants;
(5) Two members representing academic institutions with an expertise in urban and community forestry activities;
(6) One member representing state forestry agencies or equivalent state agencies;
(7) One member representing a professional renewable natural resource or arboricultural society;
(8) One member from Extension Service (National Institute of Food & Agriculture);
(9) One member from the Forest Service; and
(10) Two members who are not officers or employees of any governmental body, one of whom is a resident of a community with a population of less that 50,000 as of the most recent census and both of whom have expertise and have been active in urban and community forestry.
No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the Council. Members of the Council serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Council, subject to approval by the Designated Federal Official (DFO). The Council meets bi-annually or as often as necessary and at such times as designated by the DFO.
The appointment of members to the Council is made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Further information about the Council is posted on the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council Web site:
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies will be followed in all appointments to the Council. To ensure that the recommendations of the Council have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership includes to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Mississippi Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Meadville, Mississippi. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. The meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the meetings are to review and recommend project proposals.
The meetings will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the following dates:
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Bude Work Center, 3085 Hwy 98 East, Meadville, Mississippi. Directions and/or teleconference phone number and passcode may be obtained by contacting the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Bruce Prud'homme, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 601–384–5876 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
On March 10, 2014, the Onondaga County Office of Economic Development, grantee of FTZ 90, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of PPC Broadband, Inc., within Subzone 90C, in Dewitt, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On November 19, 2013, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board published a notice in the
Any questions regarding the FTZ Board's application formats—including any difficulty in accessing the formats via the internet address referenced above—may be addressed to the Board's staff at (202) 482–2862 or
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before August 5, 2014. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 14–011. Applicant: University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093. Instrument: iMIC Digital Microscope 2.0. Manufacturer: TILL Photonics (FEI Munich), Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to gain fundamental knowledge of the mechanisms involved in eukaryotic cell motion, by utilizing a total internal reflection technique which allows visualization of only the cell part that is immediately above the substratum (roughly the bottom 100 nm of a cell), which enables cell imaging with a superior spatial and temporal resolution over other non-TIRF microscopes. Examples of experiments to be conducted with the instrument include measuring the forces generated by several different cell types on substrates during directed motility, determining the spatial location of signaling components involved in cell-substrate adhesion, investigating the effect of different substrate rigidities on cell motility, determining the response of cells to externally imposed chemical gradients, and determining the role of certain signaling components in cell motility. Crucial in the experiments is the unique ability of the instrument to autofocus the imaging plane such that the cell remains in focus for an extended period of time, which guarantees sharp images for the duration of the experiments. The instrument also has a Yanus IV scanhead that enables fast Fluorescence Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP) experiments, and a custom-made plexiglass box to facilitate specific temperature and CO
Docket Number: 14–016. Applicant: California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Blvd., MC 213–15, Pasadena, CA 91125. Instrument: iXBlue OCTANS Surface—Fiber Optic Gyrocompass. Manufacturer: iXBLUE Incorporated, France. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to provide accurate data for research on earthquake early warning, by orienting more than 100 seismic sensors to the exact north direction. The instrument includes unique features such as compact design and ease of use in enclosed spaces such as small vault installations that are 8 feet deep and only 2 feet in diameter, the ability to measure orientation with an accuracy of 0.1 degrees, portability, and is based on iXBlue's proprietary algorithms that are not available domestically. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 6, 2014.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Oversight Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, August 4, 2014 at 9 a.m.
The meetings will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone: (978) 777–2500; fax: (978) 750–7959.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
The items of discussion on the committee agenda are: Review of Amendment 18 action plan and discussion of results of the Compass Lexecon Peer Review on excessive shares in the groundfish fishery. They will review the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) analysis to develop inshore/offshore areas and management measures to limit commercial and recreational concentrations of fishing effort on Gulf of Maine cod and other depleted stocks. Also, on the agenda will be the review of draft alternatives under development in Amendment 18 regarding inshore/offshore areas, accumulation limits, and data confidentiality. They will also review Framework Adjustment 53 action plan and receive an update from the PDT on progress. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that James Lloyd-Smith, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, 610 Charles E. Young Dr. South, Box 723905, Los Angeles, CA 90095–7239, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 17115–02.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Amy Sloan, (301)427–8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 17115–02 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 17115–00 was issued on September 24, 2012 (77 FR 63296). A major amendment, Permit No. 17115–01, was issued on August 28, 2013 (76 FR 56219). The permit was amended via a minor amendment (Permit No. 17115–02) on March 14, 2014, to clarify anesthetic procedures. Permit No. 17115–02 authorizes the permit holder to study the prevalence of leptospirosis in wild California sea lions (
The permit holder requests the permit be amended to: (1) Expand the current sampling season (March to May and August to November) to any time of year excluding peak pupping season on rookeries; (2) change the project location from Año Nuevo Island and Monterey Bay as separate locations to a combined coastal California area including offshore islands; (3) increase the number of sea lions sampled annually in coastal California from 120 to 160 annually (this includes Año Nuevo Island, Monterey Bay, and other coastal areas combined); (4) add captures of pups approximately 8–9 months old (20 annually at all locations); (5) add water captures for new locations and use of injectable drugs; (6) increase incidental disturbance of California sea lions on San Nicolas Island from 6,000 to 10,000 annually; (7) increase incidental disturbance from 8,000 California sea lions combined at Año Nuevo and Monterey Bay to 10,000 total in coastal California annually; (8) add incidental disturbance of eastern Steller sea lions (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announces its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA. As required by the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the MDA has selected possible additional locations in the United States that would be best suited for future deployment of an interceptor capable of protecting the homeland against threats from nations, such as North Korea and Iran. The MDA is preparing this EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that could result from the future deployment of the Continental United States Interceptor Site (CIS). The existing Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) provides protection of the United States from a limited ballistic missile attack, and the Department of Defense has not made a decision to deploy or construct the CIS.
The MDA invites public comments on the scope of the CIS EIS during a 60-day public scoping period beginning with publication of this notice in the
Written comments, statements, and/or concerns regarding the scope of the EIS or requests to be added to the EIS distribution list should be addressed to MDA CIS EIS and sent by email to
Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Public Affairs, at 571–231–8210, or by email:
In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.6, an invitation for cooperating agency status has been extended to the U.S. Department of the Army and Navy and National Guard for consultation, review, and comment on the EIS. Other cooperating agencies may be identified during the scoping process.
If deployed, the CIS would be an extension of the existing Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the BMDS. Under the current proposed action, the deployment of the CIS would be as a contiguous Missile Defense Complex, similar to that found at Fort Greely, Alaska and would consist of an initial deployment of 20 Ground-based Interceptors (GBIs) with the ability to expand upward to 60 GBIs. The GBIs would not be fired from their deployment site except in the Nation's defense and no test firing would be conducted at the CIS. The overall system architecture and baseline requirements for a notional CIS include, but are not limited to, the GBI fields, Command Launch Equipment, In-Flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminals, GMD Communication Network, supporting facilities, such as lodging and dining, recreation, warehouse and bulk storage, vehicle storage and maintenance, fire station, hazardous materials/waste storage, and roads and parking where necessary.
Alternatives to be analyzed include the No-Action Alternative and sites at the Combined Training Center Fort Custer—Michigan Army National Guard, Augusta, MI; Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center—Ohio Army National Guard, Portage and Trumbull Counties, OH; Fort Drum Army Base, Fort Drum, NY; and the Center for Security Forces Detachment Kittery Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Facility (SERE East), Redington Township, ME. At each site, impacts will be assessed for the following resource categories—air quality, air space, biological, cultural, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, water quality, wetlands, visual and aesthetic, environmental justice, and subsistence.
The MDA encourages all interested members of the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies to participate in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS. The scoping process assists in determining the scope of issues to be addressed and helps identify significant environmental issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS.
Scoping meetings will be held in the local communities of Ravenna, OH; Galesburg and Battle Creek, MI; Carthage, NY; and Rangeley and Farmington, ME, during July through September 2014. Notification of the meeting locations, dates, and times will be published and announced in local news media prior to public scoping meetings.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0248, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Jennifer Hawes, 571–372–6115. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at:
This information collection includes the requirements of DFARS Appendix F, Material Inspection and Receiving Report; the related clause at DFARS 252.246–7000, Material Inspection and Receiving Report; and, DD Forms 250, 250c, and 250–1. The clause at DFARS 252.246–7000 is used in contracts that require separate and distinct deliverables. The clause requires the contractor to prepare and furnish to the Government a material inspection and receiving report (DD Form 250) in a manner and to the extent required by DFARS Appendix F. The information is required for material inspection and acceptance, shipping, and payment.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement under Control Number 0704–0245 for use through October 31, 2014. Also included in this submission is the DFARS part 247-related transportation requirement (DFARS clause 252.247–7028) previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704–0250 that expires on April 30, 2016. (The information collection requirements associated with DFARS part 242, Contract Administration and Audit Services, will remain in OMB Control Number 0704–0250.) DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for the requirements now included under Control Number 0704–0245 for use for three additional years.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 15, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0245, using any of the following methods:
○ Federal eRulemaking Portal:
○ Email:
○ Fax: 571–372–6094.
○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Veronica Fallon, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, Washington, DC 20301–3060.
○ Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Veronica Fallon, 571–372–6098.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7000, Hardship Conditions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(a) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of unusual conditions associated with loading or unloading a particular cargo, for potential adjustment of contract labor rates; and to submit any associated request for price adjustment to the contracting officer within 10 working days of the vessel sailing time.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7001, Price Adjustment, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(b) for use in solicitations and contracts when using sealed bidding to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the clause require the contractor to notify the contracting officer of certain changes in the wage rates or benefits that apply to its direct labor employees. Paragraph (g) of the clause requires the contractor to include with its final invoice a statement that the contractor has experienced no decreases in rates of pay for labor or has notified the contracting officer of all such decreases.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7002, Revision of Prices, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(c) for use in solicitations and contracts when using negotiation to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraph (c) of the clause provides that, at any time, either the contracting officer or the contractor may deliver to the other a written demand that the parties negotiate to revise the prices under the contract. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires that, if either party makes such a demand, the contractor must submit relevant data upon which to base negotiations.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7007, Liability and Insurance, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(g) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (f) of the clause requires the contractor to furnish the contracting officer with satisfactory evidence of insurance.
The provision at DFARS 252.247–7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(a) for use in all solicitations except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services or those with an anticipated value at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Paragraph (b) of the provision requires the offeror to represent whether or not it anticipates that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from the solicitation.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(b) for use in all solicitations and contracts except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires the contractor to submit any requests for use of other than U.S.-flag vessels in writing to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) of the clause requires the contractor to submit one copy of the rated on board vessel operating carrier's ocean bill of landing. Paragraph (f) of the clause, if the contract exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, requires the contractor to represent, with its final invoice, that: (1) No ocean transportation was used in the performance of the contract; (2) only U.S.-flag vessels were used for all ocean shipments under the contract; (3) the contractor had the written consent of the contracting officer for all non-U.S.-flag ocean transportation; or (4) shipments were made on non-U.S.-flag vessels without the written consent of the contracting officer. Contractors must flow down these requirements to noncommercial subcontracts and certain types of commercial subcontracts. Subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (f) stated above.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7024, Notification of Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(c) for use in all contracts, for which the offeror represented, by completion of the provision at DFARS 252.247–7022, that it did not anticipate transporting any supplies by sea in performance of the contract. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer if the contractor learns, after award of the contract, that supplies will be transported by sea.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7026, Evaluation Preference for Use of Domestic Shipyards—Applicable to Acquisition of Carriage by Vessel for DoD Cargo in the Coastwise or Noncontiguous Trade, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(e) in solicitations that require a covered vessel for carriage of cargo for DoD. Paragraph (c) of the clause requires the offeror to provide information with its offer, addressing all covered vessels for which overhaul, repair, and maintenance work has been performed during the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission, and the preceding four calendar years.
The clause at DFARS 252.247.7028, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.207(2) for inclusion in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when shipping under Bills of Lading and Domestic Route Order under FOB origin contract, Export Traffic Release regardless of FOB terms, or foreign military sales shipments. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires contractors to complete DD Form 1659 to request shipping documentation/instructions, unless an automated system is available (paragraph (b) of the clause).
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On June 20, 2014, we published in the
Effective July 16, 2014.
In the
Also, on page 35327, in the middle of the third column, under 4.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard intergovernmental review period in order to make an award by the end of FY 2014.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, division H, Public Law 113–76; and title V, part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
LaShawndra Thornton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W257, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–5617 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy, Office of Science.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Wednesday, July 30, 2014, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m.–12:00 noon.
Bethesda North Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
Katie Perine, Office of Basic Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; SC–22/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903–6529
• News from Office of Science/DOE
• News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
• Big Data Center for Applied Mathematics for Energy Research
• Big Ideas Summit and DOE Tech Team Summary
• JCESR Upgrade
• COY Report for the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division
• Evolution of the Energy Landscape
• Summary of the Future of Electron Scattering and Diffraction Workshop
• Grand Challenge Update and Initial Discussion of BESAC Charge
Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, Secretariat, Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting.
At the direction of the President, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department), as the Secretariat for the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force (QER Task Force), will convene a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on issues related to the Quadrennial Energy Review.
A public meeting will be held on August 11, 2014, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Mountain Time in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Written comments are welcome, especially following the public meeting, and should be submitted within 60 days of the meeting.
The August 11 meeting will be held at the: New Mexico State Personnel Office Auditorium, 2600 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505–3258.
You may submit written comments to:
For the Santa Fe public meeting, please title your comment “Quadrennial Energy Review: Comment on the Public Meeting State, Local and Tribal Issues.
Ms. Adonica Renee Pickett, EPSA–90, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
On January 9, 2014, President Obama issued a
The DOE, as the Secretariat for the Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, will hold a series of public meetings to discuss and receive comments on issues related to the Quadrennial Energy Review.
The initial focus for the Quadrennial Energy Review will be our Nation's infrastructure for transporting, transmitting, storing and delivering energy. Our current infrastructure is increasingly challenged by transformations in energy supply, markets, and patterns of end use; issues of aging and capacity; impacts of climate change; and cyber and physical threats. Any vulnerability in this infrastructure may be exacerbated by the increasing interdependencies of energy systems with water, telecommunications, transportation, and emergency response systems. The first Quadrennial Energy Review Report will serve as a roadmap to help address these challenges.
The Department of Energy has a broad role in energy policy development and the largest role in implementing the Federal Government's energy research and development portfolio. Many other executive departments and agencies also play key roles in developing and implementing policies governing energy resources and consumption, as well as associated environmental impacts. In addition, non-Federal actors are crucial contributors to energy policies. Because most energy and related infrastructure is owned by private entities, investment by and engagement of the private sector is necessary to develop and implement effective policies. State and local policies; the views of nongovernmental, environmental, faith-based, labor, and other social organizations; and contributions from the academic and non-profit sectors are also critical to the development and implementation of effective energy policies.
An interagency Quadrennial Energy Review Task Force, which includes members from all relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies), will develop an integrated review of energy policy that integrates all of these perspectives. It will build on the foundation provided in the Administration's
On August 11, 2014, the DOE will hold a public meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The August 11, 2014 public meeting will feature facilitated panel discussions, followed by an open microphone session. Persons desiring to speak during the open microphone session at the public meeting should come prepared to speak for no more than five minutes and will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis, according to the order in which they register to speak on a sign-in sheet available at the meeting location, on the morning of the meeting.
In advance of the meeting, DOE anticipates making publicly available a briefing memorandum providing useful background information regarding the topics under discussion at the meeting. DOE will post this memorandum on its Web site:
Do not submit to the QER email address (
If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the Pompano Compressor Station 21.5 Project proposed by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in the above-referenced docket. FGT requests authorization to construct, own, and operate new natural gas facilities in Broward County, Florida to provide additional delivery quantities to Florida Power & Light Company's Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Pompano Compressor Station 21.5 Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. FGT's proposed project would include a new 22,000 horsepower electric driven compressor station; 3,100 feet of 18- and 24-inch-diameter mainline pipeline; and appurtenant facilities in Broward County, Florida. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for viewing on the FERC's Web site at
Copies of the EA were mailed to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to lessen or avoid environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before August 8, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP14–21–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at 202–502–8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208–FERC or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Link Energy Incorporated's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 30, 2014.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
As announced in the Notice issued on June 19, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed its staff to convene workshops as necessary to commence a discussion with industry on existing market rules and operational practices affecting price formation issues in energy and ancillary services markets operated by Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs). The June 19 Notice listed four areas of interest: Uplift payments, offer price mitigation and price caps, scarcity and shortage pricing, and operator actions that affect prices. The first workshop will focus on uplift payments in energy and ancillary services markets operated by RTOs and ISOs and will be held on Monday, September 8, 2014 from 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commission members may participate in the workshop.
The September 8 workshop will focus on the technical, operational and market issues that give rise to uplift payments and the levels of transparency. The workshop will also preview the scope of the remaining price formation topics of offer price mitigation and price caps, scarcity and shortage pricing, and operator actions that affect prices. As noted in the June 19 Notice, additional workshops will be announced on these topics in the coming months.
The workshop will be open for the public to attend. Advance registration is not required, but is encouraged. Attendees may register at the following Web page:
Those wishing to participate in the program for this event should nominate themselves through the on-line registration form no later than July 30, 2014 at the following Web page:
Further details and a formal agenda will be issued prior to the workshop.
Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,
Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For further information on this workshop, please contact:
Take notice that on July 3, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (collectively, the Petitioners) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission disclaim jurisdiction over: (1) Transmission interconnection facilities delivering power from the Antelope Elk Energy Center located in the State of Texas to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) electric grid (Transmission Interconnection Facilities), and (2) transmission and sales of energy over the Transmission Interconnection Facilities. In addition, the Petitioners request that the Commission declare that utilities in ERCOT and the Market Participants that are not currently public utilities under the Federal Power Act, will not become public utilities as a result of the interconnection of the Antelope Elk Energy Center, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 4, 2014.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Title IV of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water Security and Safety (Act) Renewal” (EPA ICR No. 2103.05, OMB Control No. 2040–0253) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2003–0013, 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.
Karen Edwards, Water Security Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode: 4608T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–3797; fax number: 202–566–0055; 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.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2003–0013, which is available for online viewing at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under the
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
There is no decrease in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This reflects EPA's continued need to collect documents that were included in the original estimate, but still have not been submitted to the Agency.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0719, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Amelia Letnes, State and Regional Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–5627; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this draft ICR under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0719, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
As a result of the Court's decision, beginning October 31, 2011 NPDES permits were required for discharges to waters of the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Regulations governing permit requirements for NPDES discharges are codified at 40 CFR parts 122. This draft ICR includes information submitted or recorded by permittees as well as information used primarily by permitting authorities. The permitting authority will use the information to assess permittee compliance and modify/add new permit requirements as appropriate. The estimated burden in this draft ICR is based on EPA's NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP).
The draft ICR provides a detailed explanation of the agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 12,896 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. EPA expects that the 2016 PGP will be similar to the 2011 PGP. All of the decrease in burden is attributable to the shift from the 2011 PGP to the 2016 PGP in year 3 of this draft ICR when permittees renewing their coverage would not need to develop a new Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.
EPA will consider the comments received on this notice and amend the draft ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is interested in soliciting input regarding the Agency's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program's logo redesign. The Agency will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources as it selects a logo for the DfE Program that accurately communicates the program's efforts to advance human and environmental health protection through safer products. The Agency will hold two listening sessions via webinars on this topic to give the public the opportunity to provide feedback on draft logo designs.
The webinars will be held on Monday, August 4, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., EDT; and Tuesday, August 5, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., EDT.
To participate in any of the webinars, you must register no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, on Friday, August 1, 2014.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the technical person listed under
The meetings/listening sessions will be held via webinars. See Unit III. How can I participate in this meeting? in
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, distribute, label, certify, verify, and purchase or use consumer, commercial, or industrial products that may be considered as “green,” “sustainable,” or “environmentally preferable.” Participation in this activity is voluntary. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include but are limited to:
• Manufacturing (NAICS codes 31–33).
• Construction (NAICS code 23).
• Wholesale trade (NAICS code 42).
• Retail trade (NAICS codes 44–45).
• Professional, scientific and technical services (NAICS code 54).
• Accommodations and food Services (NAICS code 72).
• Other services, except public administration (NAICS code 81).
• Public administration (NAICS code 92).
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0426, is available at
•
•
EPA is interested in soliciting input regarding the Agency's redesign of the logo that represents the Design for the Environment Program. While EPA does not intend to formally respond to all comments that are submitted, EPA will consider the information gathered from this notice and other sources as it selects a new DfE logo that accurately reflects the program's efforts to advance human and environmental health protection through the labeling of safer products.
The EPA would like the DfE logo redesign to achieve the following:
• Better convey the scientific rigor and benefits of the program (e.g., safer for human health) with a logo that is easier to display on products, materials, and in digital media,
• Increase consumer and I/I purchaser recognition of products bearing EPA's Safer Product Label, and
• Encourage innovation and development of safer chemicals and chemical-based products.
To participate in any of the webinars, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0426, you must register no later than 11:59 p.m., EDT, on Friday, August 1, 2014. To register, please visit the DfE Web site at
Environmental protection, environmentally preferable products, green products, procurement, safer products, safer chemicals.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8195; email address:
The Agency included in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0014, is available at
EPA issued a notice in the
Environmental protection, pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
LaTanya Moody, Pesticide re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8022; email address:
The Agency included in the June 25, 2014 notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0396, is available at
FR Doc. 2014–14685 published in the
1. On page 36057, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Docket ID No.”, line 3, Imazamethabenz (Case 7207), correct EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0395 to read EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0394.
2. On page 36057, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Chemical review manager or regulatory action leader, telephone no., email address”, line 3, Imazamethabenz (Case 7207), correct
3. On page 36058, in the second column of Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Docket ID No.”, line 7, Propargite (Case 243), correct EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0051 to read EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0131.
4. On page 36058, in the first column, paragraph 1, line 16, correct EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0211 to read EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0244.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Benzisothiazolin-3-one, Bispyribac-sodium, Etridiazole, Imazamethabenz, Imazamox, Imazapyr, IR3535, Mecoprop, Mesotrione, Methylisothiazolinone, Octhilinone, Propargite, Pyraclostrobin, Pyraflufen-ethyl, Zinc pyrithione (formerly omadine salts), and Zoxamide.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a December 4, 2013
The cancellations are effective July 16, 2014.
John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8195; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0014, is available at
This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Pesticide registration number 000241–00379 and its content has been removed from the listing in Table 1. EPA inadvertently listed the pesticide registration number 000241–00379, in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period, EPA received four comments regarding pesticide concerns in general. These four comments did not contain information about any specific product cancellation request. For these reasons, the Agency does not believe that the comments submitted during the comment period merit further review or a denial of the requests for voluntary cancellation.
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are cancelled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is July 16, 2014. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until July 16, 2015, which is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
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 July 31, 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.
The Commission is requesting emergency OMB processing of the information collection requirements contained in this notice and has requested OMB approval by 20 days after the collection is received at OMB.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
On July 19, 2005, the Commission released an Order, In the Matter of Telecommunication Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67 and CG Docket No. 03–123, published at 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005, clarifying that two-line captioned telephone VCO service, like one-line captioned telephone VCO service, is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. Also, the Commission clarified that certain TRS mandatory minimum standards do not apply to two-line captioned VCO service and waived 47 CFR 64.604(a)(1) and (a)(3) for providers who offer two-line captioned VCO service.
On January 11, 2007, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling, In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03–123, published at 72 FR 6960, February 14, 2007, granting a request for clarification that Internet Protocol (IP) captioned telephone relay service (IP CTS) is a type of TRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) when offered in
On August 26, 2013, the Commission issued a Report and Order, In the Matter of Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 13–24 and 03–123, published at 78 FR 53684, August 30, 2013, to regulate practices relating to the marketing of IP CTS, impose certain requirements for the provision of this service, and mandate registration and certification of IP CTS users. The Commission published a notice in the
Subsequently, on December 6, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed “the rule adopted by the Commission [in the Report and Order] prohibiting compensation to providers for minutes of use generated by equipment consumers received from providers for free or for less than $75.” Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC v. FCC, Order, D.C. Cir., No. 13–1246, December 6, 2013, at 1–2. (For convenience, this notice refers to the requirement subject to the stay as “the $75 equipment charge rule.”) In the revised supporting statement, the Commission sought OMB approval of the following requirements adopted in the Report and Order: (1) The requirements regarding the labeling of equipment, software and mobile applications; (2) the certification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the hardship exemption to the captions default-off requirement; and (3) an additional information reporting requirement for IP CTS applicants that seek Commission certification to provide IP CTS and for IP CTS providers, requiring applicants to provide assurance that they will not request or collect payment from the TRS Fund for service to consumers who do not satisfy the Commission's IP CTS registration and certification requirements. Because the registration and certification requirements adopted in the Report and Order are related to the $75 equipment charge rule that was stayed by the court of appeals, the Commission did not seek OMB approval of those requirements at that time. See 79 FR 23354, April 28, 2014.
On June 18, 2014, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements specified above that are contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 11–118, published at 78 FR 53684, August 30, 2013. The OMB Control Number is 3060–1053.
On June 20, 2014, the D.C. Circuit vacated the $75 equipment charge rule and the rule requiring providers to maintain captions-off as the default setting for IP CTS equipment. Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC v. FCC (D.C. Cir., Nos. 13–1122 and 13–1246, June 20, 2014).
On July 11, 2014, the Commission published a notice in the
This notice and request for comments pertains to the user registration and certification requirements adopted in the IP CTS Reform Order. Specifically, IP CTS providers are required to obtain from new and existing IP CTS consumers self-certification of hearing loss necessitating the use of IP CTS and their understanding of the IP CTS program. In addition, existing IP CTS consumers with free or de minimis cost equipment must further submit professional certification. 47 CFR 64.604(c)(9).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). 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 burden for 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Benish Shah, Federal Communications Commission, via the
Benish Shah, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–7866.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). 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 further ways to reduce the information burden for 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid Control Number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 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 FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Submit your PRA comments to Leslie F. Smith, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), via the Internet at
For additional information, contact Leslie F. Smith at (202) 418–0217, or via the Internet at
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
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 August 15, 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
(1) Provider Certification Under Penalty of Perjury. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), or other senior executive of a TRS provider shall certify, under penalty of perjury, that: (1) Minutes submitted to the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) administrator for compensation were handled in compliance with section 225 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders, and are not the result of impermissible financial incentives, or payments or kickbacks, to generate calls, and (2) cost and demand data submitted to the Fund administrator related to the determination of compensation rates or methodologies are true and correct.
(2) Requiring Providers to Submit Information about New and Existing Call Centers. (a) VRS providers shall submit a written statement to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator containing the locations of all of their call centers that handle VRS calls, including call centers located outside the United States, twice a year, on April 1st and October 1st. In addition to the street address of each call center, the rules require that these statements contain (1) the number of individual CAs and CA managers employed at each call center; and (2) the name and contact information (phone number and email address) for the managers at each call center. (b) VRS providers shall notify the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator in writing at least 30 days prior to any change to their call centers' locations, including the opening, closing, or relocation of any center.
(3) Data Filed with the Fund Administrator to Support Payment Claims. (a) VRS providers shall provide the following data associated with each VRS call for which a VRS provider seeks compensation in its filing with the Fund Administrator: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times; (4) conversation start and end times; (5) incoming telephone number and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (6) outbound telephone number and IP address (if call terminates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (7) total conversation minutes; (8) total session minutes; (9) the call center (by assigned center ID number) that handles the call; and (10) the URL address through which the call was initiated.
(b) All VRS and IP Relay providers shall submit speed of answer compliance data to the Fund administrator.
(4) Automated Call Data Collection. TRS providers shall use an automated record keeping system to capture the following data when seeking compensation from the Fund: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times, at a minimum to the nearest second; (4)
(5) Record Retention. Internet-based TRS providers shall retain the following data that is used to support payment claims submitted to the Fund administrator for a minimum of five years, in an electronic format: (1) The call record ID sequence; (2) CA ID number; (3) session start and end times; (4) conversation start and end times; (5) incoming telephone number and IP address (if call originates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (6) outbound telephone number and IP address (if call terminates with an IP-based device) at the time of call; (7) total conversation minutes; (8) total session minutes; and (9) the call center (by assigned center ID number) that handles the call.
(6) Third-party Agreements. (a) VRS providers shall maintain copies of all third-party contracts or agreements so that copies of these agreements will be available to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator upon request. Such contracts or agreements shall provide detailed information about the nature of the services to be provided by the subcontractor.
(b) VRS providers shall describe all agreements in connection with marketing and outreach activities, including those involving sponsorships, financial endorsements, awards, and gifts made by the provider to any individual or entity, in the providers' annual submissions to the TRS Fund administrator.
(7) Whistleblower Protection. TRS providers shall provide information about these TRS whistleblower protections, including the right to notify the Commission's Office of Inspector General or its Enforcement Bureau, to all employees and contractors, in writing. Providers that already disseminate their internal business policies to their employees in writing (e.g. in employee handbooks, policies and procedures manuals, or bulletin board postings—either online or in hard copy) must also explicitly include these TRS whistleblower protections in those written materials.
Lastly, the Commission is revising this collection to remove the “Required Submission for Waiver Request” requirement from this collection because it is no longer necessary, as this provision has expired.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
This information collection is used by the Commission to assign frequencies for use by international broadcast stations, to grant authority to operate such stations and to determine if interference or adverse propagation conditions exist that may impact the operation of such stations. The Commission collects this information pursuant to 47 CFR Part 73, subpart F. If the Commission did not collect this information, it would not be in a position to effectively coordinate spectrum for international broadcasters or to act for entities in times of frequency interference or adverse propagation conditions. Therefore, the information collection requirements are as follows:
FCC Form 309—Application for Authority To Construct or Make
FCC Form 310—Application for an International, Experimental Television, Experimental Facsimile, or a Developmental Broadcast Station License—The FCC Form 310 is filed on occasion when the applicant is submitting an application for a new international broadcast station.
FCC Form 311—Application for Renewal of an International or Experimental Broadcast Station License—The FCC Form 311 is filed by applicants who are requesting renewal of their international broadcast station licenses.
47 CFR 73.702(a) states that six months prior to the start of each season, licensees and permittees shall by informal written request, submitted to the Commission in triplicate, indicate for the season the frequency or frequencies desired for transmission to each zone or area of reception specified in the license or permit, the specific hours during which it desires to transmit to such zones or areas on each frequency, and the power, antenna gain, and antenna bearing it desires to use. Requests will be honored to the extent that interference and propagation conditions permit and that they are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of section 47 CFR 73.702(a).
47 CFR 73.702(b) states that two months before the start of each season, the licensee or permittee must inform the Commission in writing as to whether it plans to operate in accordance with the Commission's authorization or operate in another manner.
47 CFR 73.702(c) permits entities to file requests for changes to their original request for assignment and use of frequencies if they are able to show good cause. Because international broadcasters are assigned frequencies on a seasonal basis, as opposed to the full term of their eight-year license authorization, requests for changes need to be filed by entities on occasion.
47 CFR 73.702 (note) states that permittees who during the process of construction wish to engage in equipment tests shall by informal written request, submitted to the Commission in triplicate not less than 30 days before they desire to begin such testing, indicate the frequencies they desire to use for testing and the hours they desire to use those frequencies.
47 CFR 73.702(e) states within 14 days after the end of each season, each licensee or permittee must file a report with the Commission stating whether the licensee or permittee has operated the number of frequency hours authorized by the seasonal schedule to each of the zones or areas of reception specified in the schedule.
47 CFR 73.782 requires that licensees retain logs of international broadcast stations for two years. If it involves communications incident to a disaster, logs should be retained as long as required by the Commission.
47 CFR 73.759(d) states that the licensee or permittee must keep records of the time and results of each auxiliary transmitter test performed at least weekly.
47 CFR 73.762(b) requires that licensees notify the Commission in writing of any limitation or discontinuance of operation of not more than 10 days.
47 CFR 73.762(c) states that the licensee or permittee must request and receive specific authority from the Commission to discontinue operations for more than 10 days under extenuating circumstances.
47 CFR 1.1301–1.1319 cover certifications of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and how the public will be protected from radio frequency radiation hazards.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918.
A licensee of a digital commercial or noncommercial educational (NCE) full power television (TV) station, low power television (LPTV) station, TV translator or Class A TV station.
A permittee operating pursuant to digital special temporary authority (STA) of a commercial or NCE full power TV station, LPTV station, TV translator or Class A TV station.
Each DTV licensee/permittee must report whether they provided ancillary or supplementary services at any time during the reporting cycle.
Each DTV licensee/permittee is required to retain the records supporting the calculation of the fees due for three years from the date of remittance of fees. Each NCE licensee/permittee must also retain for eight years documentation sufficient to show that its entire bitstream was used “primarily” for NCE broadcast services on a weekly basis.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Friday, July 11, 2014. The meeting is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC. The Commission is waiving the sunshine period prohibition contained in Section 1.1203 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1203, until 11:59 p.m. on Monday July 7, 2014. Thus, presentations with respect to the items listed below will be permitted until that time.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Meribeth McCarrick, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call (703) 993–3100 or go to
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (202) 488–5300; Fax (202) 488–5563; TTY (202) 488–5562. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached by email at
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form (SF) 1444. A notice was published in the
Comments may be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0089 by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000–0089. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000–0089, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, SF 1444.” Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000–0089, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, SF 1444” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202–501–0650 or email
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.406 prescribes labor standards for federally financed and assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), as well as labor standards for non-construction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA).
The recordkeeping requirements in this regulation, FAR 22.406, reflect the requirements cleared under OMB control numbers 1215–0140, 1215–0149, and 1215–0017 for 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i), 5.5(c), and 5.15 (records to be kept by employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). The regulation at 29 CFR 516 reflects the basic recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the laws administered by the Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration.
FAR 22.406–3, implements the recordkeeping and information collection requirements prescribed in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) cleared under OMB control number 1215–0140 (also prescribed at 48 CFR 22.406 under OMB control number 9000–0089), by providing SF 1444, Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, for the contractor and the Government to enter the recordkeeping and information collection data required by 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) prior to transmitting the data to the Department of Labor.
This SF 1444 places no further burden on the contractor or the Government other than the information collection burdens already cleared by OMB for 29 CFR 5.
There is no burden placed on the public beyond that prescribed by the Department of Labor regulations.
The burden hour is estimated to be time necessary for the contractor to prepare and submit the form.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained 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. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS.
Notice.
This notice acknowledges the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) receipt and review of the 2014 Annual Report to Congress and the Secretary submitted by the contracted consensus-based entity (CBE) as mandated by section 1890(b)(5) of the Social Security Act, as created by section 183 of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) and
Corette Byrd, (410) 786–1158.
The order in which information is presented in this notice is as follows:
Rising health care costs coupled with the growing concern over the level of and variation in quality and efficiency in the provision of health care raise important challenges for the United States. Section 183 of MIPPA created Section 1890 of the Social Security Act, which requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to contract with a consensus-based entity (CBE) to perform multiple duties pertaining to health care performance measurement. These activities support HHS's efforts to promote high-quality, patient-centered, and financially sustainable health care. The statute mandates that the contract be competitively awarded for a period of four years and allows it to be renewed under a subsequent bidding process.
In January, 2009, a competitive contract was awarded by HHS to the National Quality Forum (NQF) for a four-year period. The contract specified that the CBE should conduct its business in an open and transparent manner, provide the opportunity for public comment and ensure that membership fees do not pose a barrier to participation in the scope of HHS's contract activities, if applicable.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 amended the statutory requirement for the CBE by adding new requirements for annual reporting to Congress and the Secretary of HHS and for convening multi-stakeholder groups and by providing additional funding for the work of the CBE.
Anticipating the end of the first contract, HHS solicited proposals for continued CBE work. After an open competition, a second four-year contract was awarded to NQF in 2012. Although the two contracts were in effect simultaneously for a short period of time, work of the two contracts did not overlap. Once the initial contract ended, task orders for work were awarded under the second contract. This annual report includes work conducted in calendar year 2013 under both the original contract which ended in 2013 and the subsequent contract.
The two HHS contracts in effect during 2013 include the following major tasks:
(i) The implementation of quality and efficiency measurement initiatives and the coordination of such initiatives with quality and efficiency initiatives implemented by other payers;
(ii) recommendations on an integrated national strategy and priorities for health care performance measurement;
(iii) performance of its duties required under its contract with HHS;
(iv) gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures, which shall include measures that are within priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy established under section 399HH of the Public Health Service Act (National Quality Strategy), and where quality and efficiency measures are unavailable or inadequate to identify or address such gaps;
(v) areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of quality and efficiency measures in priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy, and where targeted research may address such gaps; and
(vi) the convening of multi-stakeholder groups to provide input on: (1) The selection of quality and efficiency measures from among such measures that have been endorsed by the CBE and such measures that have not been considered for endorsement by the CBE but are used or proposed to be used by the Secretary for the collection
Section 1890(b)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act requires Secretarial review and publication of this report in the
The first annual report covered the performance period of January 14, 2009 to February 28, 2009 or the first six weeks post contract award. In March 2009, NQF submitted the first annual report to Congress and the Secretary of HHS. Given the short timeframe between award and the statutory requirement for the submission of the first annual report, this first report provided a brief summary of future plans. The Secretary published a notice in the
In March 2010, NQF submitted to Congress and the Secretary the second annual report covering the period of performance of March 1, 2009 through February 28, 2010. The second annual report was published in the
In March 2011, NQF submitted the third annual report to Congress and Secretary of HHS. The third annual report, which covers March 1, 2010 through February 28, 2011, was published in the
In March 2012, NQF submitted its fourth annual report to Congress and the Secretary. The report covers the period of performance of January 14, 2011 through January 13, 2012. The fourth annual report was published in the
In March 2013, NQF submitted its fifth annual report to Congress and the Secretary. This report covers the period of performance of January 14, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The fifth annual report was published in the
In March 2014, NQF submitted its sixth annual report to Congress and the Secretary. The report covers the period of performance of January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Because the first annual report covered only six weeks, there have been six annual reports under this five-year contract. This notice complies with the statutory requirement for Secretarial review and publication of the fifth NQF annual report.
This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number: HHSM–500–2012–00009I Task Order 9.
Over the last six years Congress has passed two statutes (and extended one) that call upon HHS to work with a consensus-based entity (the “Entity”) to facilitate multi-stakeholder input into (1) setting national priorities for improvement in quality, and (2) recommending use of performance measures in federal programs to achieve these priorities. The statutes also call upon a consensus-based entity to review and endorse a portfolio of standardized performance measures to be used by stakeholders in public and private quality improvement and accountability programs. The first of these statutes is the 2008 Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) (PL 110–275), which established the responsibilities of the consensus-based entity by creating section 1890 of the Social Security Act. The second statute is the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Pub. L. 111–148), which modified and added to the consensus-based entity's responsibilities. The 2013 American Taxpayer Relief Act (Pub. L. 112–240) extended funding under the MIPPA statute to the consensus-based entity through fiscal year 2013. HHS awarded contracts related to the consensus-based entity identified in these statutes to the National Quality Forum (NQF).
These laws specifically charge the Entity to report annually on its work. As amended by the above laws, the Social Security Act (the Act)—specifically section 1890(b)(5)(A)—also mandates that the entity report to Congress and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) no later than March 1st of each year. The report must include descriptions of: (1) How NQF has implemented quality and efficiency measurement initiatives under the Act and coordinated these initiatives with those implemented by other payers; (2) NQF's recommendations with respect to activities conducted under the Act ; (3) NQF's performance of the duties required under its contract with HHS; (4) gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures that NQF has identified, including measures that are within priority areas identified by the Secretary under HHS' national strategy; (5) areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of measures in priority areas identified by the National Quality Strategy, and where targeted research may address such gaps, and (6) the matters described in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (7)(A) of section 1890(b).
This fifth Annual Report highlight's NQF's work conducted between January 14, 2013 and December 31, 2013 related to these statutes and conducted under a federal contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The deliverables produced under contract in 2013 are referenced throughout this report, and a full list is included in Appendix A.
Section 1890(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act), mandates that the consensus-based entity (CBE) also required under section 1890 of the Act shall “synthesize evidence and convene key stakeholders to make recommendations . . . on an integrated national strategy and priorities for healthcare performance measurement in all applicable settings.” In making such recommendations, the entity shall ensure that priority is given to measures that address the healthcare provided to patients with prevalent, high-cost chronic diseases, that focus on the greatest potential for improving the quality, efficiency, and patient-centeredness of healthcare, and that may be implemented rapidly due to existing evidence and standards of care. In addition, the entity will take into account measures that may assist consumers and patients in making informed healthcare decisions, address health disparities across groups and areas, and address the continuum of care a patient receives, including services furnished by multiple healthcare providers or practitioners and across multiple settings.
In 2010, at the request of HHS, the NQF-convened National Priorities Partnership (NPP) provided input that helped shape the initial version of the
NQF has continued to further the NQS by convening diverse stakeholder groups to reach consensus on key strategies for improvement. In 2013, NQF began work in several emerging areas of importance that address the National Quality Strategy, such as how to improve population health within communities; how consumers can leverage quality information to make informed healthcare coverage decisions; and how to dramatically improve patient safety in high-priority areas.
Under section 1890(b)(2) and (3) of the Act, the entity must provide for the endorsement of standardized healthcare performance measures. The endorsement process shall consider whether measures are evidence-based, reliable, valid, verifiable, relevant to enhanced health outcomes, actionable at the caregiver level, feasible for collecting and reporting data, responsive to variations in patient characteristics, and consistent across healthcare providers. In addition, the entity must maintain endorsed measures, including retiring obsolete measures and bringing other measures up to date.
Since its inception in 1999, NQF has developed a portfolio of approximately 700 NQF-endorsed measures which are in widespread use across an array of settings. In concert with others, the work of NQF has contributed to a more information-rich healthcare system, and demonstrated that measures—particularly in tandem with delivery changes and payment reform—can lead to improvement in performance.
Over the past several years, NQF, working in partnership with HHS and others, has worked to evolve the science of performance measurement through more rigorous evaluation criteria. This effort has included placing greater emphasis on evidence and a clear link to outcomes; a greater focus on addressing key gaps in care, including care coordination and patient experience; and a requirement that testing of measures demonstrates their reliability and validity. NQF also has laid the foundation for the next generation of measures by providing guidance on composite measurement; patient-reported outcome measures; electronic, or eMeasures; and measures that evaluate complex but important areas such as resource use and population health.
Across six HHS-funded projects in 2013, NQF added 27 measures to its portfolio. During 2013, NQF also removed 95 measures from its portfolio for a variety of reasons: Measures no longer met endorsement criteria; measures were harmonized with other similar, competing measures; measure developers chose to retire measures they no longer wished to maintain; or measures “topped out,” by consistently performing at the highest level.
Since September 2013, HHS has awarded to NQF 11 additional measure endorsement projects, touching on topics such as admissions and readmissions, cost and resource use, endocrine, cardiovascular, care coordination, and person- and family-centered care, among others. NQF has begun seating expert steering committees for each project, as well as issuing calls for measures to be reviewed and considered for endorsement.
Under section 1890A of the Act, HHS is required to establish a pre-rulemaking process under which a consensus-based entity (currently NQF) would convene multi-stakeholder groups to provide input to the Secretary on the selection of quality and efficiency measures for use in certain federal programs. The list of quality and efficiency measures HHS is considering for selection is to be publicly published no later than December 1 of each year. No later than February 1 of each year, NQF is to report the input of the multi-stakeholder groups, which will be considered by HHS in the selection of quality and efficiency measures.
The Measure Applications Partnership (MAP) is a public-private partnership convened by NQF and created to provide input to HHS on the selection of performance measures for more than twenty federal public reporting and performance-based payment programs. The MAP provides a unique opportunity for public- and private-sector leaders to develop and then seek broad review and comment on a future-focused performance measurement strategy, as well as provide shorter-term recommendations for that strategy on an annual basis. The MAP strives to offer recommendations that apply to and are coordinated across settings of care; federal, state, and private programs; levels of attribution and measurement analysis; payer type; and points in time.
In 2013, HHS requested that MAP focus on an array of projects including recommending measures for federal public reporting and payment programs, developing “families of measures” (groups of measures selected to work together across settings of care in pursuit of specific healthcare improvement goals) for high-priority areas, and providing input on measures for vulnerable populations, including Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and adults enrolled in Medicaid.
Under section 1890(b)(5)(iv) of the Act, the entity is required to describe gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures, including measures within priority areas identified by HHS under the agency's National Quality Strategy, and where quality and efficiency measures are unavailable or inadequate to identify or address such gaps. Under section 1890(b)(5)(v) of the Act, the entity is also required to describe areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of quality and efficiency measures in priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy and where targeted research may address such gaps.
NQF continued in 2013 to address the need to fill measurement gaps by building on and supplementing the analytic work that informed a 2012 Measure Gap Analysis Report. Through both the MAP and its expert committees convened to assess measures for endorsement, NQF took initial steps to encourage gap-filling by moving toward prioritization of gap areas, offering more detailed suggestions for measure development, and involving measure developers in discussions about gaps.
In an effort to get more specific and detailed guidance to measure developers with respect to key measurement gap areas, HHS requested in 2013 that NQF recommend priorities for performance measurement development across five topics areas specified by HHS, including:
•
•
•
•
•
Section 1890(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act), mandates that the consensus-based entity (CBE) also required under section 1890 of the Act shall “synthesize evidence and convene key stakeholders to make recommendations . . . on an integrated national strategy and priorities for healthcare performance measurement in all applicable settings.” In making such recommendations, the entity shall ensure that priority is given to measures that address the healthcare provided to patients with prevalent, high-cost chronic diseases, that focus on the greatest potential for improving the quality, efficiency, and patient-centeredness of healthcare, and that may be implemented rapidly due to existing evidence and standards of care. In addition, the entity will take into account measures that may assist consumers and patients in making informed healthcare decisions, address health disparities across groups and areas, and address the continuum of care a patient receives, including services furnished by multiple healthcare providers or practitioners and across multiple settings.
In 2010, at the request of HHS, the NQF-convened National Priorities Partnership (NPP) provided input that helped shape the initial version of the
NQF has continued to further the NQS by convening diverse stakeholder groups to reach consensus on key strategies for improvement. In 2013, NQF began work in several emerging areas of importance that address the National Quality Strategy, such as how to improve population health within communities; how consumers can leverage quality information to make informed healthcare coverage decisions; and how to dramatically improve patient safety in high-priority areas. Activities in these areas are discussed below.
The National Quality Strategy's population health aim focuses on:
With the expansion of coverage due to the ACA, the Federal government has an opportunity to meaningfully coordinate its improvement efforts with those of local communities in order to better integrate and align medical care and population health. If such efforts are effective, the nation's health will be improved and costs will be lowered. To support these efforts, NQF conducted an environmental scan of frameworks, initiatives, tools, data, and measures that can provide the foundation for developing an evidence-based framework to be used by communities to improve population health. This framework is intended to provide guidance in answering questions such as:
• How can multi-stakeholder groups come together to address community health improvement?
• Which individuals and organizations should be at the table?
• What processes and methods should communities use to assess their health?
• What data are available to assess, analyze, and address community health needs, and measure improvement?
• What incentives exist that can drive alignment and coordination to improve community health?
• How can communities advance more affordable care by achieving greater alignment, efficiency, and cost savings?
The project's Steering Committee met in January 2014 to discuss the results of the environmental scan and how it can be leveraged to develop a framework. This initial work is part of a three-year effort that ultimately will result in an action-oriented guide that communities can use to implement the framework and improve population health.
Under the statutory provision that the consensus-based entity will “take into account measures that may assist consumers and patients in making informed healthcare decisions,” HHS directed NQF to convene multi-stakeholder groups to provide input and comment on the hierarchical structure and organization of a Quality Rating System (QRS), as well as proposed quality and efficiency measures that will form a core measure set for the QRS. The measures—which will be publicly reported beginning in 2016—will help consumers select plans through the new Health Insurance Exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
The review and provision of input on the proposed core measures and organization of information for the QRS is being carried out by NQF's Measure Applications Partnership (MAP). The MAP is made up of stakeholders from a wide array of healthcare sectors and 10 federal agencies, as well as 110 subject matter experts, tasked with recommending measures for federal public reporting, payment, and other programs to enhance healthcare value. The MAP convened the QRS Task Force in November 2013 to finalize the task force's decision-making framework, provide input on the proposed measures for the family and child measure core sets, and comment on the structure of the QRS. The task force also discussed the highest leverage opportunities for measurement within the health insurance exchange marketplaces and developed an ideal organization of measures to best support consumer decision-making. The task force met again in December 2013 and finalized recommendations to the MAP Coordinating Committee on the proposed structure and measures for the QRS for submission in January 2014.
Finally, NQF is leveraging its membership and relationships with key stakeholders across the healthcare field to further mobilize private sector action in support of HHS'
• Reducing early elective deliveries;
• Reducing readmissions for complex and vulnerable populations; and
• Engaging patients and families in health systems improvement.
Under section 1890(b)(2) and (3) of the Act, the entity must provide for the endorsement of standardized health care performance measures. The endorsement process shall consider whether measures are evidence-based, reliable, valid, verifiable, relevant to enhanced health outcomes, actionable at the caregiver level, feasible for collecting and reporting data, responsive to variations in patient characteristics, and consistent across healthcare providers. In addition, the entity must maintain endorsed measures, including retiring obsolete measures and bringing other measures up to date.
Standardized healthcare performance measures are used by a range of healthcare stakeholders for a variety of purposes. Measures help clinicians, hospitals, and other providers understand whether the care they provide their patients is optimal and appropriate, and if not, where to focus their efforts to improve. Public and private payers also use measures for feedback and benchmarking purposes, public reporting, and incentive-based payment. Lastly, measures are an essential part of making the cost and quality of healthcare more transparent to all, particularly for those who receive care or help make care decisions for loved ones.
Working with a variety of stakeholders to build consensus, NQF reviews and endorses healthcare performance measures that underpin federal and private-sector initiatives focused on enhancing the value of healthcare services. Since its inception in 1999, NQF has developed a portfolio of approximately 700 NQF-endorsed measures which are in widespread use across an array of settings. In concert with others, the work of NQF has contributed to a more information-rich healthcare system, and demonstrated that measures—particularly in tandem with delivery changes and payment reform—can lead to improvement in performance.
Over the past several years, NQF, in concert with HHS and others, has worked to evolve the science of performance measurement through more rigorous evaluation criteria. This effort has included placing greater emphasis on evidence and a clear link to outcomes; a greater focus on addressing key gaps in care, including care coordination and patient experience; and a requirement that testing of measures demonstrates their reliability and validity. NQF also has laid the foundation for the next generation of measures by providing guidance on composite measurement, patient-reported outcome measures, electronic or eMeasures, and measures that evaluate complex but important areas such as resource use and population health.
NQF's measure “maintenance” process—where endorsed measures are re-evaluated against current criteria and reviewed alongside newly submitted but not yet endorsed measures—ensures that the measure portfolio contains “best-in class” measures across a variety of clinical and cross-cutting topic areas. Working with expert committees,
Finally, NQF also works with stewards and developers who create measures, in order to “harmonize” related or near-identical measures and eliminate nuanced differences. Harmonization is critical to reducing measurement burden for providers, who may be inundated with various misaligned measurement requests. Successful harmonization may result in fewer endorsed measures for providers to report and for payers and consumers to interpret. Where appropriate, NQF works with measure developers to replace existing process measures with more meaningful outcome measures.
Across six HHS-funded projects in 2013, NQF added 27 measures to its portfolio. This contrasts to 301 measures endorsed in 2012 across 16 HHS-funded projects. The significant difference in endorsed measures between 2012 and 2013 can be attributed to the fact that the 2013 work was primarily conducted within a contract that was nearing completion. New measure endorsement projects were awarded under a new contracting vehicle in September 2013. During 2013, NQF also removed 95 measures from its portfolio for a variety of reasons: Measures no longer met endorsement criteria; measures were harmonized with other similar, competing measures; measure developers chose to retire measures they no longer wished to maintain; or measures “topped out,” by consistently performing at the highest level.
While NQF pursues strategies to make its measure portfolio appropriately lean, it also aggressively seeks measures from the field that will help to fill known measure gaps and to align with the NQS goals. Several important factors motivate NQF to expand its portfolio, including the need for eMeasures; measures that are applicable to multiple clinical specialties and settings of care; measures which assist in the evaluation of new payment models (e.g., bundled payment); and the need for more advanced measures that help close cross-cutting gaps in areas such as care coordination and patient-reported outcomes. The measure portfolio reflects the combined “dynamic yet static” effect of these strategies: Although the portfolio frequently changes due to new measures cycling in and older measures cycling out, the relative number of endorsed measures remained steady in 2013.
Furthermore, a diverse set of measure developers, ranging from medical specialty societies to hospital systems to government agencies, have had measures endorsed through NQF's consensus development process. While 69 developers have made significant contributions to the portfolio, seven
In 2013, NQF completed work on six HHS-funded measure endorsement projects—endorsing 27 total measures. These measures included 11 new measures and 16 measures that the NQF expert committees concluded could maintain their previous endorsement after being reviewed against the NQF measure evaluation criteria and compared to new evidence or competing measures.
The measures endorsed by NQF in 2013 align with needs prioritized in the NQS and address several critical areas, including pulmonary and critical care, infectious disease, neurology, and patient safety.
Measure highlights include the following:
Patient safety measures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that healthcare-acquired infections potentially cost U.S. hospitals more than $31 billion per year.
NQF was also asked to provide guidance to the field on emerging areas of importance, and as a result completed two reports—Composite Performance Measure Evaluation Guidance
Evaluating composite measures. NQF undertook an HHS-funded project focused on providing guidance about composite measures—which combine information on multiple individual performance measures into one summary measure. Such measures can provide a way for payers and patients to get a high-level, comprehensive sense of performance in a given area, while giving providers a look at the strengths and weaknesses of the care they are providing. However, composite measures are complex, and the methods used to construct such measures affect the reliability, validity, and usefulness of the measure and require some unique considerations for testing and analysis. Accordingly, NQF convened a Technical Expert Panel that produced a final report offering guidance to Steering Committees tasked with evaluating composite measures. The primary recommendations that came out of the report indicate that while composite measures may be evaluated against current NQF measure evaluation criteria, they must also be subject to two additional sub-criteria addressing evidence and reliability and validity (further explanation can be found in Table 1 of the
eMeasure feasibility assessment. As quality measurement shifts to using measures derived from electronic health records (EHRs), there is a need for more clarity about the testing required to assure that eMeasures can be used for a range of accountability applications. In response, a report from NQF identified a set of principles and criteria to ensure adequate feasibility testing for new and retooled eMeasures moving forward. This final report provides important guidance that can shape future eMeasure development, as well as product development and certification requirements. Specifically, the report
A complete listing of measurement projects undertaken by NQF in 2013 under contract with HHS is available in Appendix A, including the 11 new endorsement projects that were awarded in fall 2013. Individual measures may be found on the NQF Web site using the
Since September 2013, HHS has awarded to NQF several additional measure endorsement projects, touching on topics such as admissions and readmissions, cost and resource use, endocrine, cardiovascular, care coordination, and person- and family-centered care, among others. NQF has begun seating expert steering committees for each project, as well as issuing calls for measures to be reviewed and considered for endorsement.
In addition, NQF has begun work on two other measure-related projects. One focuses on episode groupers, which create condition-specific episodes of care from administration claims data, which can be useful in deciding how best to group costs per episode. In turn, these groupers can help the healthcare community make meaningful assessments and comparisons about the cost and amount of healthcare resources used.
In the episode grouper project, NQF seeks to:
• Define the characteristics of an episode grouper in comparison to other systems, including classification or risk adjustment systems;
• Review (and modify as needed) existing NQF endorsement criteria and guidance, and/or provide additional recommendations for episode grouper evaluation;
• Examine the necessary submission elements for the evaluation of an episode grouper; and
• Review best practices for the construction of an episode grouper.
NQF is working to seat an expert steering committee for this work, and will hold an in-person meeting in 2014.
Through the second measurement science project, NQF is bringing together expert stakeholders to develop a set of recommendations focused on risk adjustment for performance measures—the process of controlling for intrinsic patient factors that could influence outcomes. For example, risk adjustment allows for fair comparisons between two providers who treat elderly, sicker patients and younger, healthier patients, respectively. These recommendations will specifically address if, when, and how resource use performance measures should be adjusted for socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity. The recommendations will also address whether NQF's measure evaluation criteria—which currently indicate that such measures not be risk adjusted but instead stratified (i.e., split in a way that shows differences between two or more groups) for factors related to disparities in care—should be revised. NQF finalized the composition of a steering committee to guide this project in December 2013.
For more than ten years, both NQF and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) have worked to find a standardized approach for reporting to enable shared learning across the country on how to reduce adverse events. NQF's list of Serious Reportable Events (SRE's) first published in 2002, has helped raise awareness and stimulate action around preventable adverse event that should be reported. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 advanced reporting further by authorizing the development of common and consistent definitions and standardized formats to collect, collate, and analyze patient safety events occurring within and across healthcare providers. AHRQ developed the Common Formats—a standardized method for collection and compilation of information about patient safety events occurring in the United States, including Serious Reportable Events—to operationalize those provisions of the Act.
To ensure the Common Formats are feasible for use in the field, AHRQ has contracted with NQF to implement a process that ensures broad stakeholder input on new Common Formats modules developed by AHRQ. Having collected comments in previous years, NQF is now tasked with collecting comments on methods for further refining the Common Formats. A commenting tool will be available to stakeholders in 2014 pending a launch date decision from AHRQ.
Developed by NQF, the Quality Data Model (QDM) is an “information model” that provides a way to describe clinical concepts (for example, medications ordered or dispensed for patients with coronary artery disease) in a structured and standard format that can be interpreted by clinical information systems. The QDM is also a key component in the development of electronic clinical quality measures, in that it provides the basic logic to articulate quality measure criteria. For several years, NQF has worked with HHS to further develop and refine the QDM. NQF has now worked with QDM stakeholders to transition the development and maintenance of the QDM to a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). In preparation, NQF hosted four webinars that provided guidance and updates throughout the transition, which was completed in December 2013.
Under section 1890A of the Act, HHS is required to establish a pre-rulemaking process under which a consensus-based entity (currently NQF) would convene multi-stakeholder groups to provide input to the Secretary on the selection of quality and efficiency measures for use in certain federal programs. The list of quality and efficiency measures HHS is considering for selection is to be publicly published no later than December 1 of each year. No later than February 1 of each year, NQF is to report the input of the multi-stakeholder groups, which will be considered by HHS in the selection of quality and efficiency measures.
The Measure Applications Partnership (MAP) is a public-private partnership convened by NQF, as mandated by the ACA (Pub. L. 111–148, section 3014). The MAP was created to provide input to HHS on the selection of performance measures for more than twenty federal public reporting and performance-based payment programs. Launched in the spring of 2011, the
The MAP is an innovation in the regulatory sphere; it provides a forum to get the private and public sectors on the same page with respect to use of measures to enhance healthcare value. In addition, the MAP is an interactive and inclusive vehicle by which the federal government can solicit critical feedback from stakeholders—particularly consumers and purchasers—regarding measures used in federal public reporting and payment programs. This approach augments traditional rulemaking, allowing the opportunity for substantive input to HHS in advance of rules being issued. Additionally, the MAP provides a unique opportunity for public- and private-sector leaders to develop and then broadly review and comment on a future-focused performance measurement strategy, as well as provide shorter-term recommendations for that strategy on an annual basis. The MAP strives to offer recommendations that apply to and are coordinated across settings of care; federal, state, and private programs; levels of attribution and measurement analysis; payer type; and points in time.
In 2013, the MAP took on several diverse tasks focused on recommending measures for federal public reporting and payment programs, developing “families of measures” (groups of measures selected to work together across settings of care in pursuit of specific healthcare improvement goals) for high-priority areas, and providing input on measures for vulnerable populations, including dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and adults enrolled in Medicaid. Specifically:
On December 1, 2012, the MAP received and began reviewing a list of more than 500 measures under consideration by HHS for use in more than twenty Medicare programs covering clinician, hospital, and post-acute care/long-term care settings.
In this pre-rulemaking
The MAP Clinician and Hospital Workgroups developed guiding principles to facilitate their decisions about the application of measures to specific programs rather than offering recommendations on individual measures. The guiding principles (included in the
In its 2013 pre-rulemaking report, the MAP noted several themes for future consideration that emerged across all 20 Medicare programs during the pre-rulemaking cycle including:
• System-level measurement (e.g., at the level of health plans, accountable care organizations, integrated delivery systems) can be a catalyst for comprehensively assessing care across settings and populations and addressing all aspects of the NQS three-part aim: Better Care; Healthy People/Healthy Communities; and Affordable Care.
• As program incentive structures evolve from pay-for-reporting to pay-for-performance, it is increasingly important that performance measures meet high standards for validity and reliability so that providers are not misclassified.
• Shared accountability for healthcare delivery and engagement of community and social supports systems is needed to address diverse needs and fragmented care, particularly of vulnerable populations.
• To capture the value of healthcare services provided, measures of clinical quality, particularly outcomes, should be linked to cost measures. All stakeholders should be cognizant of the costs of care.
The MAP also began work on the 2014 Pre-Rulemaking Report. In December 2013, the four MAP work groups—Clinician, Dual Eligible Beneficiaries, Hospital, and Post-Acute Care/Long-Term Care—met individually to review and provide input to the MAP Coordinating Committee on measure sets for use in federal programs addressing their respective populations. A final report and recommendations on measures will be issued in 2014.
In 2013, HHS again tasked the MAP to identify new families of measures—groups of measures selected to work together across settings of care in pursuit of specific healthcare improvement goals—in three high-priority areas that relate to NQS priorities: Affordability, person- and family-centered care, and population health. The Affordability Task Force has since been formed, and members are now working to develop consensus-based definitions of affordability. NQF also held a public comment period in November 2013 soliciting input on how to define affordability, as well as on what is most important to measure. In 2014, the MAP will finalize Task Forces for the Person- and Family-Centered Care and Population Health topics, and begin identifying appropriate measures.
Efforts to better integrate care for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees have gained significant momentum since the Secretary established the Federal Coordinated Health Care Office (Medicare-Medicaid Coordination Office) as required by the Affordable Care Act. Generally, Medicare-Medicaid enrollees are people who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid and are sometimes referred to as “dual eligibles.” The selection and use of appropriate measures are critical to satisfy the need for information about beneficiary experience for this group. Beginning in 2011, HHS charged the MAP with providing input on the use of performance measures to assess and improve the quality of care delivered to Medicare-Medicaid enrollees. The MAP has continued to explore this topic and has completed a series of reports to HHS that present sets of available measures appropriate for use in this population.
In July 2013, the MAP issued a report that recommended a family of measures for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and included a discussion of the issues in quality measurement for individuals
The MAP Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Workgroup considered the following properties when assessing an identified measure's appropriateness for inclusion in the family.
• NQF endorsement: Include NQF-endorsed® measures because they have met criteria for importance, scientific rigor, feasibility, and usability.
• Potential impact: Include measures with the most power to improve health, such as outcome measures, composite measures, and cross-cutting measures broadly defined to include a large denominator population.
• Improvability: Include measures that target areas in which quality improvement would be expected to have a substantial effect or address health risks and conditions known to have disparities in care.
• Relevance: Include measures that address health risks and conditions that are highly prevalent, severe, costly, or otherwise particularly burdensome for the dual eligible population.
• Person-centeredness: Include measures that are meaningful and important to consumers, such as those that focus on engagement, experience, or other individually-reported outcomes. Person-centered care emphasizes access, choice, self-determination, and community integration.
• Alignment: Include measures already reported for existing measurement programs to minimize participants' data collection and reporting burden. Consistent use of measures helps to synchronize public- and private-sector programs around the National Quality Strategy and to amplify the quality signal.
• Reach: Include measures relevant to a range of care settings, provider types, and levels of analysis.
A measure did not need to fulfill all of the properties to be selected. However, to be considered comprehensive, the family of measures should encompass all of these characteristics because they are particularly important for achieving good results within the Medicare-Medicaid enrollee population. Stakeholders planning quality measurement programs can apply the properties to other measure sets to evaluate whether a measure would be appropriate for their use and general alignment with MAP principles.
To compile the family of measures, the workgroup considered the universe of measures previously identified by the MAP for use in the general Medicare-Medicaid enrollee population or one of its high-need subgroups. The Workgroup also reviewed a small number of newly developed measures not previously selected. From a starting point of 97 possible measures, the Workgroup conducted multiple rounds of prioritization and ultimately selected 55 measures for inclusion in the family. Of these measures, 51 are currently endorsed by NQF and four have been submitted for endorsement in NQF's current consensus development project for behavioral health.
HHS also asked NQF to convene a multi-stakeholder group via the MAP to continue addressing measurement topics related to Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and make annual refinements to the previously published Family of Measures. NQF will also evaluate opportunities to improve alignment and reduce burden associated with overlapping state and federal measurement requirements.
In addition, HHS asked that the MAP provide annual input on the Initial Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures for Adults Enrolled in Medicaid. The first part of this work, completed in 2013, was informed by direct feedback from state Medicaid directors and other stakeholders. In October 2013, NQF submitted a final report to HHS which detailed the MAP's findings of an expedited review of the Initial Core Set of Measures as well as public comment on the findings.
Since these tasks were awarded, the MAP Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Workgroup has met to discuss measuring quality of life, and NQF has delivered the first of three quarterly memos to HHS focused on strategic issues. NQF staff have also been involved in convening activities across the other MAP Workgroups—Clinician, Hospital, and Post-Acute Care/Long-Term Care—during pre-rulemaking deliberations to ensure all activities related to these populations remain coordinated.
Under section 1890(b)(5)(iv) of the Act, the entity is required to describe gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures, including measures within priority areas identified by HHS under the agency's National Quality Strategy, and where quality and efficiency measures are unavailable or inadequate to identify or address such gaps. Under section 1890(b)(5)(v) of the Act, the entity is also required to describe areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of quality and efficiency measures in priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy and where targeted research may address such gaps.
In February of 2013, NQF completed the
• Better care: Patient-reported outcomes; patient-centered care and shared decision-making; care coordination and care transitions; and care for vulnerable populations;
• Healthy people/healthy communities: Health and well-being; preventive care; and childhood measures; and
• Accessible and affordable care: Access to care; healthcare affordability, and waste and overuse.
NQF continued in 2013 to address the need to fill measurement gaps to build on and supplement the analytic work that informed the above 2012 Measure Gap Analysis Report. NQF, through both the MAP and its expert endorsement committees, took initial steps to encourage gap-filling by moving toward
During the MAP's pre-rulemaking review of proposed measures submitted by HHS in December of 2012, the areas on the MAP's list of previously identified gaps were validated with some additional detail and nuances. For instance, the Clinician Workgroup indicated that measures need to reflect a more diverse set of outpatient conditions; the group struggled to find available measures that adequately balance issues under the control of individual clinicians versus the larger health system. Public commenters generally agreed with the gap areas identified on the NQF list, including gaps in:
• Safety: Healthcare-associated infections, medication safety, perioperative/procedural safety, pain management, venous thromboembolism, falls and mobility, and obstetric adverse events;
• Patient and family engagement: Person-centered communication, shared decision making and care planning, advanced illness care, and patient-reported measures;
• Healthy living;
• Care coordination: Communication, care transitions, system and infrastructure support, and avoidable admissions and readmissions;
• Affordability; and
• Prevention and treatment of leading causes of mortality: Primary and secondary prevention, cancer, cardiovascular conditions, depression, diabetes, and musculoskeletal conditions.
Multiple organizations also conveyed a need for better measures on diverse topics including care coordination, functional status, medication management, and palliative care. Some public commenters offered specific recommendations for additional priority gap areas, such as prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and made suggestions for updates to the list of previously identified gaps.
Despite the relatively large number of measures under consideration by the MAP, stakeholders indicated that many measure gaps remain. In general, the types of gaps raised were consistent with those that the MAP has previously identified, and include a need for more outcome measures; measures for discrete populations, such as children and the underserved; measures that are not specified at the desired level of analysis and/or setting;
MAP members expressed strong support for NQF playing a coordination role in gap-filling and working closely with measure developers early in the development process, rather than only as “referee” during endorsement, while guarding against involvement in measure development. One theme from MAP discussions identified a collective need to better understand the development pipeline and the cost of stewarding a measure to assess barriers to measure development. Subsequent discussion touched on the need to create a business case for measure development. Another theme was the lack of shared knowledge about which measure developers are already working on certain topics which can lead to duplicative efforts and inefficient use of resources.
In an effort to address these issues, NQF has launched a Measure Inventory Pipeline, which is a virtual space for developers to share information on measure development activities. The Pipeline can display data on current and planned measure development, and allows developers to share successes and challenges. The Pipeline can also help developers connect and collaborate with their peers on development ideas, which in turn will promote harmonization and alignment of measures. This Pipeline will supplement CMS' existing Measure Pipeline and allow developers to more broadly share information with their peers across public and private supported development effort.
Public commenters broadly supported NQF's initiatives to make progress on gap-filling. Some public commenters offered recommendations for new directions to take in measure development, such as making better use of alternate data sources and increasing research in important areas where evidence is limited. Several organizations stated an explicit desire to assist NQF in its ongoing efforts to address measure gaps.
With respect to MAP 2014 Pre-Rulemaking advice, early review and discussion by MAP committees of more than 230 proposed measures in December of 2013 showed that a significant proportion of measures under HHS consideration related to efficiency and cost reduction, corresponding to the NQS priority of making care more affordable. A relatively small number of measures under consideration addressed person- and family-centered experience and community/population health, essential priorities that are underrepresented in terms of quantity of current measures. In contrast, the greatest proportion of measures addresses the priority area of effective clinical care, which are the largest number of measures in NQF's portfolio.
In an effort to get more specific and detailed guidance to developers with respect to key measurement gap areas, HHS requested in 2013 that NQF recommend priorities for performance measurement development across five topics areas specified by HHS, including:
• Adult Immunization—identifying critical areas for performance measurement to optimize vaccination rates and outcomes across adult populations;
• Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias—targeting a high-impact condition with complex medical and social implications that impact patients, their families, and their caregivers;
• Care Coordination—focusing on team-based care and coordination between providers of primary care and community-based services in the context of the “health neighborhood”;
• Health Workforce—emphasizing the role of the workforce in prevention and care coordination, linkages between healthcare and community-based services, and workforce deployment; and
• Person-Centered Care and Outcomes—considering measures that are most important to patients—particularly patient-reported outcomes—and how to advance them through health information technology.
The Adult Immunization committee—with the help of an advisory group—outlined a draft framework that builds on concepts identified by the Quality and Performance Measures Workgroup of the HHS Interagency Adult Immunization Task Force. The draft framework also seeks to illustrate measure gaps in specific age bands and special populations including young adults, pregnant women, the elderly and adults overall. During an October 2013 meeting, the committee made several suggestions for improving the framework, including the need to:
• Clarify all terms and include definitions;
• Include all special populations from the immunization schedule;
• Separate immunization of healthcare personnel from other populations;
• Include measures for Immunization Information systems (IIS); and
• Include measures from the Meaningful Use program.
The committee will meet in early 2014 to provide further input into the conceptual framework, and again in March 2014 to develop recommendations on measures and measure concepts that can be further developed as performance measures. The committee will also be tasked with making recommendations that foster harmonization and alignment of measures.
The Care Coordination committee developed a draft conceptual framework that builds on work from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's
This committee will meet in early 2014 to further refine the conceptual framework, and consider options for addressing measure gaps that draw on promising practices for care coordination with respect to the following questions:
• What are the most important care coordination measurement domains at the interest of primary care and community services?
• How much reliance is appropriate to place on care recipients and caregivers to serve as the coordinators between the medical and non-medical systems?
• Should shared decision-making be added as a domain in the care coordination framework and if so how does this relate to care planning?
• What are direct outcomes of care coordination (e.g., improved patient/family experience)?
• To what other outcomes does care coordination contribute (e.g., improved health status, progress toward the NQS)?
Achieving the National Quality Strategy's aims of better care, affordable care, and healthy people/healthy communities will require an adequate supply and distribution of a well-trained workforce. Therefore, in consultation with HHS and with input from advisory members, NQF developed a draft conceptual framework for measurement that captures elements necessary for successful and measureable workforce deployment. The draft framework builds on existing resources and frameworks, including NQF's
More than 200 measures were identified in the environmental scan as potential health workforce measures. Large sets of measures were found related to training and development, mostly related to professional educational programs and the number of graduates in specific health professions. Although many measures of patient and family experience of care related to workforce performance were identified, few measures capturing workforce experience were found. Workforce capacity and productivity measures proved to have a substantial presence, especially those related to geographical distribution and skill mix. A significant number of measures related to infrastructure were also identified, a majority of which were specifically focused on the ability to use HIT to provide care and patient access to primary prevention services.
The health workforce committee will meet again in early 2014 to further refine the framework, consider high-priority opportunities for measure development and endorsement, and discuss promising measures, measure concepts and remaining gaps in critical measurement areas.
The Person-Centered Care and Outcomes committee also outlined a draft conceptual framework that offered a definition for and core concepts of person- and family-centered care that was influenced by previous work from the Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care and the Institute of Medicine:
HHS requested that the Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementias committee begin work on a draft conceptual framework and environmental scan after the previously mentioned committees—especially the care coordination and person-centered care and outcomes committees—compiled their findings. This request was made so that the Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementias committee could incorporate the findings from these two committees into their own work product. As a result, a draft conceptual framework and environmental scan will be completed in February 2014.
NQF identified additional high-priority measure gaps through other work by MAP and NQF's endorsement and maintenance work. More specifically, the Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Workgroup providing greater specificity to measure developers and funders, and identified the following list of gaps:
• Goal-directed, person-centered care planning and implementation
• Shared decision-making
• Systems to coordinate healthcare with non-medical community resources and service providers
• Beneficiary sense of control/autonomy/self-determination
• Psychosocial needs
• Community integration/inclusion and participation
• Optimal functioning (e.g., improving when possible, maintaining, managing decline)
Specifically, the MAP recommends for future measure development continuing a focus on topics that are meaningful to consumers, such as individual engagement, experience, and outcomes. In addition, the MAP emphasizes the need for cross-cutting measures that apply to care and supports at all levels to promote shared accountability and collaboration. Measures should incorporate information from patients receiving services, providers, health plans, other accountable entities, and/or states. Several measure gap areas are prioritized here for the first time, including psychosocial needs, shared decision-making, and community integration/inclusion and participation. The MAP will continue to communicate with measure developers and other stakeholders positioned to help fill measurement gaps.
Although the MAP's work to-date on measure gaps—including the pre-rulemaking efforts and input from specific workgroups—is starting to bear fruit, persistent gaps across sectors, such as care coordination and patient experience, continue to frustrate measurement efforts. Many factors contribute to influence these gaps which are outside of the MAP's control, such as the lack of an information technology structure to facilitate care coordination, and challenges associated with collecting patient experience data at the clinician level. However, the MAP, in coordination with NQF's larger initiatives, will continue to try and influence ongoing progress in filling measure gaps through its specific recommendations and by enhanced collaboration with other stakeholders.
Gaps are also routinely identified as an outgrowth of NQF's annual endorsement and maintenance process. Specific measure gaps identified through 2013 work, by topic area, include:
• Measures addressing patient outcomes;
• Additional measures dealing with HIV/AIDS, including testing for individuals ages 13–64; colposcopy screening for HIV-positive women who have abnormal Pap test results; resistance testing for persons newly enrolled in HIV care with viral loads greater than 1000; and HIV testing for pregnant women on initial visits;
• Process and outcome measures that evaluate improvements in device-associated infections in hospital settings, particularly for catheter- associated urinary tract infections;
• Outcome measures that include follow-up for screening tests; and
• Screening for additional sexually transmitted infections, including human papillomavirus (HPV).
• Palliative and end-of-life care measures for stroke patients;
• Functional status outcome measures, especially related to stroke severity;
• Measures that focus on patients with health disparities and disabilities;
• Pre-hospital care and emergency response measures; and
• Post-acute care and rehabilitation care measures.
• Wound care measures, such as vascular screening for patients with leg ulcers, or adequate support surface for patients with stage III–IV pressure ulcers;
• Obstetric measures, such as induction and augmentation of labor, or outcomes of neonatal birth injury;
• Infection measures, such as vascular catheter infections;
• Equipment-related injury measures, such as monitoring of product-related events;
• Information technology measures, such as EHR programming related events;
• Physical mobility expectation measures for hospitalized adults;
• Measures that extend to settings outside of the hospital, such as nursing homes;
• Measures addressing falls across the care continuum and take into account patient assessments, plans of care, interventions, and outcomes; and
• Measures focused on complications linked to surgical site infections, including cesarean sections and outcomes.
• Measures focused on in-hospital, severity adjusted, high mortality conditions such as 30-day mortality rates, readmissions, sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS);
• Measures for earlier identification of sepsis at the compensated stage before it becomes decompensated septic shock and appropriate resuscitative measures;
• Measures of efficiency and overutilization;
• Measures that focus on palliative care for patients with end-stage pulmonary conditions;
• Better measures of comprehensive asthma education; e.g., instruction related to the appropriate application of handheld inhalers prior to discharge and demonstration of use;
• Measures of unplanned pediatric extubations;
• Measures for effectiveness and outcomes of post-acute care for COPD patients;
• Measures of functional status;
• Measures for quality of spirometries in relation to meeting the American Thoracic Society (ATS) standards for pediatric and adult patients; and
• More outpatient composite measures targeted for consumer use.
NQF has evolved in the dozen plus years it has been in existence and since it endorsed its first performance measures more than a decade ago. While its focus on improving quality, enhancing safety, and reducing costs by endorsing performance measures has remained a constant, NQF recognizes the importance of getting the various stakeholder groups to align with respect to their use of performance measures and related improvement efforts. Experience has made it clear that sector-by-sector approaches to enhancing healthcare performance are ineffective in our decentralized and complex healthcare system. They waste precious healthcare resources introduce wasteful redundancy and reporting burden and may even do harm.
With funding from HHS, NQF tackled several critical issues affecting healthcare quality and safety in 2013 that helped advance the aims and priorities of the National Quality Strategy. New projects explored how to improve population health within communities; how consumers can leverage quality information to make informed healthcare coverage decisions; and how to dramatically improve patient safety in high-priority areas.
In addition, NQF laid the foundation for the next generation of measures by providing guidance on composite measurement; patient-reported outcome measures; electronic, or eMeasures; and measures that evaluate complex but important areas such as resource use and population health.
Finally, the NQF-convened MAP focused on an array of projects, including recommending measures for federal public reporting and payment programs, developing “families of measures” (groups of measures selected to work together across settings of care in pursuit of specific healthcare improvement goals) for high-priority areas, and providing input on measures for vulnerable populations, including Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and adults enrolled in Medicaid.
NQF will build on this work in the year ahead to help build a measure portfolio that drives the healthcare system to both delivering higher value healthcare at lower cost while incorporating the needs and preferences of patients, payers, and purchasers and ultimately improving patient and community health.
Measures are evaluated for their suitability based on standardized criteria in the following order:
More information is available on the NQF Web site at:
The MAP operates through a two-tiered structure. Guided by the priorities and goals of HHS's National Quality Strategy, the MAP Coordinating Committee provides direction and direct input to HHS. MAP's workgroups advise the Coordinating Committee on measures needed for specific care settings, care providers, and patient populations. Time-limited task forces charged with developing “families of measures”—related measures that cross settings and populations—provide further information to the MAP Coordinating Committee and workgroups. Each multi-stakeholder group includes individuals with content expertise and organizations particularly affected by the work.
The MAP's members are selected based on NQF Board-adopted selection criteria, through an annual nominations process and an open public commenting period. Balance among stakeholder groups is paramount. Due to the complexity of MAP's tasks, individual subject matter experts are included in the groups. Federal government
This 2014 Annual Report to Congress and the Secretary describes NQF's work in 2013 to fulfill the requirements specified in section 1890 of the Social Security Act. Of particular interest to the Department, in 2013, NQF continued work initiated in 2010 to develop recommendations on the National Quality Strategy by convening diverse stakeholder groups to reach consensus on quality measurement priorities. NQF also began work in several priority areas that the National Quality Strategy addresses, such as improving population health within communities, improving patient safety in high-priority areas, and helping consumers leverage quality information to make informed healthcare coverage decisions—a critically important area as more people choose the health care coverage that is best for them through the health insurance marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.
We are also pleased that during the year, NQF furthered its work on performance measures by adding 27 measures to its portfolio. We note that although the number of measures endorsed in 2013 is significantly lower than in the preceding year, the meetings that were convened in 2013 to endorse measures took place as the initial four-year contract was ending. Under the new contract, NQF began to develop new measures candidates, but those did not reach the stage of endorsement review by the end of the year.
Moreover, in 2013, the Measure Applications Partnership (MAP), a public-private partnership convened by NQF: (1) Recommended measures for federal public reporting and payment programs; (2) developed “families of measures” for high-priority areas; and (3) provided input on measures for vulnerable populations, including Medicare-Medicaid enrollees and adults enrolled in Medicaid.
NQF also continued to address the need to fill measurement gaps in priority areas. Under the second contract, NQF began working with key stakeholders to make recommendations for performance measurement development in five priority topic areas: (1) Adult immunization; (2) Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; (3) care coordination; (4) health workforce; and (5) person-centered care and outcomes.
These and the other activities described in the 2014 Annual Report to Congress and the Secretary, published above, reflect the wide scope of work required for comprehensive, methodologically sound measurement of health care quality and continued improvement of health care in the United States. HHS thanks NQF for its insightful and informative work conducted in 2013.
As previously noted, the work reflected in the 2014 Annual Report to Congress and the Secretary was produced under both HHS' initial four-year contract with the NQF which expired in July, 2013 and a subsequent, four-year contract. In 2014 and beyond, HHS will continue to work with the consensus-based entity and all stakeholders on ongoing measure endorsement and maintenance to continuously improve the set of measures available for widespread application. HHS will also work with NQF on more targeted and strategic issues such as measures regarding the quality of home and community-based care for people with disabilities, the use of information technology in quality measurement, and improving population health. All of these initiatives will help to fulfill the triple aims of the National Quality Strategy: Better health care, healthier people and communities, and more affordable care for all Americans.
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).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 15, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The guidance provides recommendations for applicants planning to request waivers or reductions in user fees assessed under sections 735 and 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g and 21 U.S.C. 379h) (the FD&C Act). The guidance describes the types of waivers and reductions permitted under the user fee provisions of the FD&C Act, and the procedures for submitting requests for waivers or reductions. It also includes recommendations for submitting information for requests for reconsideration of denials of waiver or reduction requests, and for requests for appeals. The guidance also provides clarification on related issues such as user fee exemptions for orphan drugs.
We estimate that the total annual number of waiver requests submitted for all of these categories will be 120, submitted by 100 different sponsors. We estimate that the average burden hours for preparation of a submission will total 16 hours. Because FDA may request additional information from the applicant during the review period, we have also included in this estimate time to prepare any additional information.
The reconsideration and appeal requests are not addressed in the FD&C Act but are discussed in the guidance. We estimate that we will receive 3 requests for reconsideration annually,
The burden for filling out and submitting Form FDA 3397 (Prescription Drug User Fee Coversheet) has not been included in the burden analysis, because that information collection is already approved under OMB control number 0910–0297. The collections of information associated with a new drug application or biologics license application have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0001 and 0910–0338, respectively.
We have included in the burden estimate the preparation and submission of application fee waivers for small businesses, because small businesses requesting a waiver must submit documentation to FDA on the number of their employees and must include the information that the application is the first human drug application, within the meaning of the FD&C Act, to be submitted to the Agency for approval. Because the Small Business Administration (SBA) makes the size determinations for FDA, small businesses must also submit information to the SBA. The submission of information to SBA is already approved under OMB control number 3245–0101.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 15, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In the
Section 50.23(e)(1) (21 CFR 50.23(e)(1)) provides an exception to the general rule that informed consent is required for the use of an investigational in vitro diagnostic device. This exception applies to those situations in which the in vitro investigational diagnostic device is used to prepare for, and respond to, a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorism event or other public health emergency, if the investigator and an independent
Section 50.23(e)(4) provides that an investigator must disclose the investigational status of the device and what is known about the performance characteristics of the device at the time test results are reported to the subject's health care provider and public health authorities, as applicable. Under § 50.23(e)(4), the investigator provides the IRB with the information required by § 50.25 (21 CFR 50.25) (except for the information described in § 50.25(a)(8)) and the procedures that will be used to provide this information to each subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
From its knowledge of the industry, FDA estimates that there are approximately 150 laboratories that could perform testing that uses investigational in vitro diagnostic devices to identify chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. FDA estimates that in the United States each year there are approximately 450 naturally occurring cases of diseases or conditions that are identified in the Centers for Disease Control's list of category “A” biological threat agents. The number of cases that would result from a terrorist event or other public health emergency is uncertain. Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates that it will take about 2 hours to prepare each certification.
Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates that it will take about 1 hour to prepare a report disclosing the investigational status of the in vitro diagnostic device and what is known about the performance characteristics of the device and submit it to the health care provider and, where appropriate, to public health authorities.
The June 7, 2006, interim final rule refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in § 50.25 have been approved under 0910–0130.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 15, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Department of Health and Human Services stockpiles medical products that are essential to the health security of the nation (see PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b). This collection of medical products for use during national health emergencies, known as the SNS, is to “provide for the emergency health security of the United States, including the emergency health security of children and other vulnerable populations, in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency.”
It may be appropriate for certain medical products that are or will be held in the SNS to be labeled in a manner that would not comply with certain FDA labeling regulations given their anticipated circumstances of use in an emergency. However, noncompliance with these labeling requirements could render such products misbranded under section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352).
Under §§ 201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11 (21 CFR 201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11), the appropriate FDA Center Director may grant a request for an exception or alternative to certain regulatory provisions pertaining to the labeling of human drugs, biological products, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostics that currently are or will be included in the SNS if certain criteria are met. The appropriate FDA Center Director may grant an exception or alternative to certain FDA labeling requirements if compliance with these labeling requirements could adversely affect the safety, effectiveness, or availability of products that are or will be included in the SNS. An exception or alternative granted under the regulations may include conditions or safeguards so that the labeling for such products includes appropriate information necessary for the safe and effective use of the product given the product's anticipated circumstances of use. Any grant of an exception or alternative will only apply to the specified lots, batches, or other units of medical products in the request. The appropriate FDA Center Director may also grant an exception or alternative to the labeling provisions specified in the regulations on his or her own initiative.
Under § 201.26(b)(1)(i) (human drug products), § 610.68(b)(1)(i) (biological products), § 801.128(b)(1)(i) (medical devices), and § 809.11(b)(1)(i) (in vitro diagnostic products for human use), an SNS official or any entity that manufactures (including labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging), distributes, or stores such products that are or will be included in the SNS may submit, with written concurrence from an SNS official, a written request for an exception or alternative to certain labeling requirements to the appropriate FDA Center Director. Except when initiated by an FDA Center Director, a request for an exception or alternative must be in writing and must:
• Identify the specified lots, batches, or other units of the affected product;
• Identify the specific labeling provisions under this rule that are the subject of the request;
• Explain why compliance with the specified labeling provisions could adversely affect the safety, effectiveness, or availability of the product subject to the request;
• Describe any proposed safeguards or conditions that will be implemented so that the labeling of the product includes appropriate information necessary for the safe and effective use of the product given the anticipated circumstances of use of the product;
• Provide copies of the proposed labeling of the specified lots, batches, or other units of the affected product that will be subject to the exception or alternative; and
• Provide any other information requested by the FDA Center Director in support of the request.
If the request is granted, the manufacturer may need to report to FDA any resulting changes to the New Drug Application, Biologics License Application, Premarket Approval Application, or Premarket Notification (510(k)) in effect, if any. The submission and grant of an exception or an alternative to the labeling requirements specified in this rule may be used to satisfy certain reporting obligations relating to changes to product applications under 21 CFR 314.70 (human drugs), 21 CFR 601.12 (biological products), 21 CFR 814.39 (medical devices subject to premarket approval), or 21 CFR 807.81 (medical devices subject to 510(k) clearance requirements). The information collection provisions in §§ 314.70, 601.12, 807.81, and 814.39 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910–0001, 0910–0338, 0910–0120, and 0910–0231 respectively. On a case-by-case basis, the appropriate FDA Center Director may also determine when an exception or alternative is granted that certain safeguards and conditions are appropriate, such as additional labeling on the SNS products, so that the labeling of such products would include information needed for safe and effective use under the anticipated circumstances of use.
Respondents to this collection of information are entities that manufacture (including labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging), distribute, or store affected SNS products. Based on the number of requests for an exception or alternative received by FDA in fiscal years 2012–13, FDA estimates an average of one request annually. FDA estimates an average of 24 hours preparing each request. The average burden per
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Health and Constituent Affairs (OHCA) is announcing a 1-day meeting to explore challenges related to pediatric product development. The meeting will serve as a forum for FDA's stakeholders (patients, caregivers, patient advocates, healthcare professional groups, the general public, academia, and industry) to learn about regulations that encourage pediatric product development; to discuss ways to advance pediatric product development, how health disparities impact pediatric product development, the importance of transparency in pediatric clinical trials, and how analysis of information from failed pediatric clinical trials might improve future designs for pediatric trials; and to identify ways patient input can benefit clinical trial design for pediatric trials.
The 1-day meeting will also provide an opportunity to participate in panel discussions on the challenges related to development of products used to treat pediatric patients, including pediatric patients with rare diseases and explore ways that patients/caregivers, FDA, and industry may work together to incorporate patient input in future pediatric product development and regulatory decisionmaking.
The public meeting will be held on September 10, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. If you wish to attend the 1-day meeting, visit the Patient Network at
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please specify those accommodations when registering for this 1-day meeting.
The meeting will be held at the Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th St. NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Steve Morin, Office of Health and Constituent Affairs, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–0161, FAX: 301–847–8623,
This is the third FDA Patient Network Annual Meeting hosted by OHCA, the Agency's primary liaison with patient and health professional communities. This annual meeting is being hosted as part of the larger FDA Patient Network program. The FDA Patient Network is a resource that seeks to:
• Educate and inform patients and patient advocacy organizations about FDA's:
○ Regulatory authorities and processes;
○ Initiatives;
○ Public meetings;
○ Ways to comment on FDA draft guidances; and
• Provide a venue for patient advocacy involvement within the FDA.
In addition to an annual meeting, the FDA Patient Network consists of:
• The FDA Patient Network Web site (
○ Educational modules and FDA webinars;
○ Centralized agency information for patients;
○ Periodic LiveChat and listening discussions between patient advocates and FDA staff; and
• The biweekly FDA Patient Network News email newsletter informs the community on current FDA-related information on medical product:
○ Medical approvals;
○ Safety labeling changes;
○ Safety warnings;
○ Ways to participate on upcoming public meetings;
○ Ways to comment on proposed regulatory guidances;
○ Information on food safety; and
○ Other information of interest to patient and patient advocates.
To sign up for the FDA Patient Network News, visit
FDA will post the agenda 5 days before the meeting at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristina Toliver at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Requirements for the Submission of Data Needed to Calculate User Fees for Domestic Manufacturers and Importers of Tobacco Products—Small Entity Compliance Guide” for a final rule published in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the SECG at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, ATTN: Office of Small Business Assistance, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Nancy Boocker or Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 1–877–287–1373,
In the
FDA is issuing this SECG as level 2 guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 15, 2014.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615–0018 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS–2008–0068. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing–Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).
Notice.
In compliance with Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act, this notice advises of the cause and description of administrative actions taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board against HUD-approved mortgagees.
Nancy A. Murray, Secretary to the Mortgagee Review Board, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B–133/3150, Washington, DC 20410–8000; telephone (202) 708–2224 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Service at (800) 877–8339.
Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board (“Board”). In compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c)(5), this notice advises of actions that have been taken by the Board in its meetings from October 1, 2012, to September 19, 2013.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410–5000; telephone 202–402–3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kevin Stevens, Director, Home Mortgage Insurance Division, Office of Single Family Program Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, email Kevin Stevens at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
Section 202 Direct Loan with or without Rental Assistance.
Section 202 Capital Advance with Project Rental Assistance Contracts or Project Assistance Contracts (PRAC and PAC) .
Section 811 Capital Advance with Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC).
Section 236 insured and non-insured with or without Rental Assistance Section 221(d)(3)
Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) with or without Rental Assistance.
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance with or without FHA insurance Rental Assistance Payment (RAP) Rent Supplement Assistance Contract Properties subject to a HUD Use Agreement or Deed Restriction.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces that the National Scheduling Coordination Committee (NSCC), which is comprised of representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and BSEE, is making additional changes to the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines. The NSCC will announce the availability of an updated draft of the revised PREP Guidelines and invite public comment at a future date. The future invitation to comment will be published in the
The public docket for any materials submitted during the previous comment period that ended April 24, 2014 (79 FR 16363), is available online at
On February 22, 2012, the USCG published, on behalf of the NSCC, a notice and request for public comments in the
On March 25, 2014, BSEE published a notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) and accompanying documents for beachfront activities regulated by the Walton County Board of Commissioners (applicant), which would take the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, piping plover, and Choctawhatchee beach mouse, incidental to activities as conducted or permitted by the applicant in Walton County, Florida. We invite public comments on these documents.
We must receive any written comments at our Regional Office (see
Documents are available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345; or Ecological Services Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405.
Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator, (see
We announce the availability of the proposed HCP, incidental take permit (ITP) application, and an environmental assessment (EA), which analyze the take of loggerhead sea turtle (
We specifically request scientific or technical information, views, and opinions from the public via this notice on our proposed Federal action, including identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the EA pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP per 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the activities, including the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative and the proposed action. The proposed action alternative is issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant. The HCP covers activities conducted or permitted by the applicant, and includes installation of beachfront armoring (temporary or permanent); beach crossovers at public access points; County and public beach driving and vehicular beach access–related activities; sale or rental of merchandise, services, goods, or property by beach vendors, as permitted by Walton County; and beach placement of temporary vending equipment storage boxes. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures include: Providing a process for the permitting and implementation of emergency armoring measures initiated under the County's permitting authority; developing and implementing guidelines to minimize disturbances to sea turtles and their nests, shorebirds, and beach mice caused by the operation of official vehicles involved in public safety, beach maintenance, law enforcement, HCP implementation, and other official business on County beaches; implementing new requirements to minimize impacts to sea turtles and their nests caused by the operation of private vehicles on County beaches; developing and implementing guidelines for beach vendors regarding the transport, placement, and storage of merchandise, equipment, and supplies to reduce interference with sea turtle nest protection activities; developing and implementing a multi-faceted public awareness program to educate residents and visitors of the importance of the County's beaches to the conservation and recovery of protected species; adopting and enforcing a beachfront lighting ordinance to reduce nighttime disturbances to sea turtles, piping plovers, and beach mice; and implementing an effective monitoring program for all species covered under the ITP to identify and ameliorate factors impeding their recovery.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference TE43711A–0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to either of our offices listed under
The area encompassed under the HCP and ITP application consists of approximately 20 miles of beachfront along the Gulf of Mexico on non-State lands, from the Bay/Walton to the Okaloosa/Walton County line.
We will evaluate the ITP application, including the HCP and any comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP for the incidental take of loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, piping plover, and Choctawhatchee beach mouse.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Owyhee Field Office, Marsing, Idaho, intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Owyhee Field Office. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until August 15, 2014. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers, and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to Owyhee RMP
• Web site:
• Email:
• Fax: 208–384–3326.
• Mail: BLM Boise District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705.
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Owyhee
John Sullivan, Supervisory Resource Management Specialist; telephone 208–384–3338, BLM Boise District Office, at the above address; or email
This document provides notice that the BLM Owyhee Field Office, Marsing, Idaho, intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated EA for the Owyhee Field Office, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The planning area is located in Owyhee County and encompasses approximately 1,320,000 acres of public land; however, this plan amendment is only intended to address the land-tenure classification of 560.62 acres. The purpose of the public-scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendment area have been identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders. The issue involves a change in the land-tenure classification for 560.62 acres of public land, described as the NW
Preliminary planning criteria include directions and requirements found in (1) The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009; (2) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; (3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; (4) The 1999 Owyhee Resource Management Plan; and (5) BLM policy manuals 1601 (Land Use Planning) and 2200 (Land Exchanges). The proposed land exchange would be completed subject to Federal regulatory requirements found at 43 CFR 2200, which include public notice and an opportunity to comment.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public-scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency. 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
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Draft RMP/Draft EA as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment and EA in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the plan amendment and development of the associated EA: Rangeland management, geology, soils, wildlife and fisheries, archaeology, outdoor recreation, and realty.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The RAC will hold a public meeting on August 4 and 5, 2014, at the Clarion Inn, 1249 Tapadera Avenue, Ontario, Oregon, from 8:30–4:30 each day. A public comment period will be available each day of the session. Unless otherwise approved by the RAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the RAC for a maximum of five minutes. Meeting times and the duration scheduled for public comment periods may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate necessary business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the RAC.
Kevin Abel, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Lakeview District Office, 1301 S G Street, Lakeview, Oregon 97630, (541) 947–6237, or email
The Southeast Oregon RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in southeast Oregon. Agenda items for the August 4–5, 2014 meeting include: Lands with wilderness characteristics; the Wild Horse and Burro Program; presentation from Burns Paiute regarding land transfer; Vale fuels discussion; discussion of Leslie Gulch fence; and planning future RAC meetings. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the Southeast Oregon RAC may also be addressed. This meeting is open to the public in its entirety. Information to be distributed to the Southeast Oregon RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting.
Before you include your address, phone number, email address, or any other personal information during your comments, please be aware that your entire comment (including your personal information) may be available to the public at any time. When making your comments, you may request that your personal information be held from public review, however we cannot guarantee it will not be disclosed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined and found suitable for classification for lease and subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, approximately 95.22 acres of public land in Elko County, Nevada. The Elko County proposes to use the land for the expansion of the Elko County Shooting Range.
Interested parties may submit written comments regarding this classification and conveyance of public land for a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to the BLM, Tuscarora Field Manager, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801.
Elisabeth Puentes, Realty Specialist, Tuscarora Field Office, at 775–753–0234, or email epuentes@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The parcel of public land proposed for classification and conveyance is located 3.5 miles west of the City of Elko, Nevada. Access to the parcel is provided by a dirt road, which exists off the western interchange of Interstate 80.
The land to be classified as suitable for conveyance is legally described as:
The area described contains 95.22 acres.
The parcel is for the expansion of the Elko County Shooting Range. The expansion of the shooting range would include the development of a facility for youth shooting sports activities, firearm safety training, and other youth oriented shooting activities.
In addition to the classification for conveyance of the above referenced lands, the BLM intends to convey lands that were previously leased pursuant to the R&PP for the Elko County shooting range and that is adjacent to the proposed expansion area. The purpose of this notice is to reclassify those parcels as suitable for reconveyance. The acres leased for the existing shooting range were classified for lease on August 9, 1985, under serial number N–21861. The lands that are now proposed for conveyance, including land previously classified August 9, 1985 under serial number N–21861, are legally described as:
The total area ultimately to be conveyed contains 255.33 acres.
The BLM conducted an Environmental Site Assessment/Land Transfer Audit (ESA/LTA) in September 2012 for all lands proposed for conveyance. The ESA/LTA concluded that lead, a hazardous material, is present in the shooting target areas and backdrop berms of the existing shorting range parcel. In general, the site is kept clean and no other issues were noted. The ESA/LTA found that the closest surface water is 1,320 feet away and ground water is expected to be 120 feet deep. There is no threat of water contamination. The alkaline soil retards the dissolution of lead, so mobilization of lead should not be an issue. Based on the existing data the transfer of the subject parcel to Elko County for the purpose of a rifle and shooting range does not present a significant risk to human health and the environment at this time. The land is not needed for any Federal purpose. The classification and disposals contemplated above are consistent with the Record of Decision and Approved Elko Resource Management Plan dated March 11, 1987.
The BLM also prepared an environmental assessment analyzing Elko County's application for the conveyance of 255.33 acres and the proposed development and management plan. Elko County has maintained the existing shooting range facility in accordance with the original management plan that was approved on September 26, 1985, as part of the N–21861 R&PP lease.
All minerals in these parcels are privately owned. A conveyance would be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act, applicable regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and the following reservation to the United States:
1. A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
A conveyance would also be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. All valid existing rights;
2. Right-of-way N–46266 for a buried fiber optic cable issued to AT&T Lease Administration, its successors or assigns, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2776, 43 U.S.C. 1761);
3. A limited reversionary provision that the title shall revert to the United States upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing that the patentee has not substantially developed the land in accordance with the approved plan of development 5 years after the date of patent. No portion of the land shall under any circumstances revert to the United States if any such portion had been used for solid waste disposal or for any other purpose that may result in disposal, placement, or release of any hazardous substances.
4. An indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's use, occupancy, or operations on the leased lands;
5. Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), as amended, notice is hereby given that the described lands have been examined and concluded that lead, a hazardous material, is present in the shooting target areas and backdrop berms on the existing shooting range parcel. In general, the site is kept clean and no other issues were noted. The ESA/LTA found that the closest surface water is 1,320 feet away and ground water is expected to be 120 feet deep. There is no threat of water contamination. The alkaline soil retards the dissolution of lead therefore; mobilization of lead should not be an issue.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments on the suitability of the land for conveyance to Elko County for a shooting range. Comments are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for conveyance proposal, whether the conveyance will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Interested parties may also submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and request for conveyance, and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures under the R&PP Act.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information for 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.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective 60 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
43 CFR 2741.5(h).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
The NPS will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of its Notice of Availability of the Final EIS/GMP in the
Electronic copies of the Final EIS/GMP will be available online at
Dan Brown, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32563–5000; telephone (850) 934–2604.
The Final EIS/GMP responds to, and incorporates agency and public comments received on the Draft EIS, which was available for public review from September 9, 2011, through December 9, 2011. A total of four public meetings were held on October 18, 2011, and November 8, 2011, at the Naval Live Oaks Visitor Center in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and on October 20, 2011, and November 10, 2011, at the Davis Bayou Visitor Center in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. A total of 181 comments were received. The NPS responses to substantive agency and public comments are provided in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS/GMP, Consultation and Coordination section.
The Final EIS/GMP evaluates four alternatives for managing use and development of the National Seashore:
• Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, represents the continuation of current management action and direction into the future.
• Alternative 2 would reduce the level of infrastructure rebuilt on the barrier islands and allow natural processes to predominate.
• Alternative 3 is the NPS Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3 would enhance visitor education, research, and resource protection opportunities. The seashore would be managed as an outdoor classroom for exploring the natural and human history of the Gulf of Mexico's barrier islands and coastal environments. Interpretive programs would focus on illustrating how barrier islands act as protectors of the mainland coastline, and the part these islands have played in the last 5,000 years of historic human occupation.
• Alternative 4 would expand and diversify visitor opportunities throughout the seashore by leveraging additional partnerships.
When approved, the plan will guide the management of the National Seashore over the next 20+ years.
The responsible official for this Final EIS/GMP is the Regional Director, NPS Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR Part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616–6975.
Notice of postponement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy has been postponed until further notice. This meeting, which was closed to the public, was to be held on July 7, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Conference Room, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The original
Anne M. Zollner, Chief, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division; Phone: (202) 693–4890.
Signed at Washington, DC, the 3rd day of July, 2014.
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
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before September 15, 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
* 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 Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, September 4, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 3H42, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–0750, fax (202) 358–2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888–790–1713, passcode 1606471, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Monday, August 11 and Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (both days), Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 7H41, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–0750, fax (202) 358–2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will be available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888–282–9631, passcode 4353550, to participate in this meeting by telephone. Please note, the conference call number and password should be used on both August 11 and August 12, 2014. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Peace Corps.
Notice to revise two existing systems of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Peace Corps proposes to revise two existing systems of records: Volunteer Applicant and Service Records System (PC–17) and Former Peace Corps Volunteer and Staff Database (PC–18). The purpose of these alterations is to add a new routine use to each SORN. The Peace Corps considers certain information about individual Volunteers/Trainees to be “public information.” The new routine use will allow the Peace Corps to disclose the “public information” as it deems appropriate.
The revisions to both systems will become effective September 2, 2014 without further action, unless adverse comments are received by Peace Corps by August 15, 2014.
You may submit comments by email to pcfr@peacecorps.gov. Include Privacy Act System of Records in the subject line of the message. You may also submit comments by mail to Denora Miller, Privacy Act Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20526. Contact Denora Miller for copies of comments.
Denora Miller, Privacy Act Officer, 202–692–1236,
The Peace Corps proposes to revise two existing systems of records: Volunteer Applicant and Service Records System (PC–17) and Former Peace Corps Volunteer and Staff Database (PC–18) to add a new routine use for each System of Records. As routine use “(n)” for PC–17 and as routine use “(c)” for PC–18, the new routine use will allow the Peace Corps to disclose certain information about current and former Volunteers/Trainees as “public information.” The public information is limited to: Name, country of service and dates of service for current and former Peace Corps Volunteers/Trainees. Requests for public information will be processed through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office. If additional information is requested it will be processed in accordance with the FOIA. The Peace Corps may also disclose the information under these two routine uses to the public as it deems appropriate.
The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, provides that the public will be given a 30-day period in which to comment on the new system. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Act, requires a 40-day period in which
PC–17—Peace Corps, Volunteer Applicant and Service Records System.
After specific Routine Use (m) add specific Routine Use (n) stating, “Regarding the name, country of service and dates of service for current and former Peace Corps Volunteers/Trainees: This information is considered public information and may be disclosed to any person upon request and to the public as the Peace Corps deems appropriate.”
PC–18—Peace Corps, Former Peace Corps Volunteers and Staff Database.
After specific Routine Use (b) add specific Routine Use (c) stating, “Regarding the name, country of service and dates of service for former Peace Corps Volunteers/Trainees: This information is considered public information and may be disclosed to any person upon request and to the public as the Peace Corps deems appropriate.”
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Combined Federal Campaign, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0193, OPM 1417, the Combined Federal Campaign Results Report. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Combined Federal Campaign, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Marcus Glasgow or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Combined Federal Campaign, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Marcus Glasgow or sent via electronic mail to
The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace philanthropic giving campaign, with 151 CFC campaigns throughout the country and overseas raising millions of dollars each year. The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.
The CFC OPM Online Form 1417 collects information from the 151 local CFC campaigns to verify campaign results and collect contact information. Revisions to the form include clarifying edits to item number 13 of the Campaign Results Totals screen; clarifying edits and expansion of item numbers 14 and 17 of the Campaign Results Totals screen; the elimination of item numbers 16, 18, and 19 of the Campaign Results Totals screen; and the inclusion of verbiage on the Summary Report screen that states that the OPM Form 1417 is not complete without the submission, by email, of the relevant designation data.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR) 3206–0033, Marital Status Certification Survey. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106),
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415–3500, Attention: Alberta Butler or via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
RI 25–7 is used to determine whether widows, widowers, and former spouses receiving survivor annuities from OPM have remarried before reaching age 55 and, thus, are no longer eligible for benefits.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR) 3206–0168, Alternative Annuity Election. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415–3500, Attention: Alberta Butler, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
RI 20–80 is used for individuals who are eligible to elect whether to receive a reduced annuity and a lump-sum payment equal to their retirement contributions (alternative form of annuity) or an unreduced annuity and no lump sum.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR) 3206–0245, Request for Change to
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415–3500, Attention: Alberta Butler, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
RI 20–120 is designed to collect information the Office of Personnel Management needs to comply with the wishes of the retired Federal employee whose marriage has ended. This form provides an organized way for the retiree to give us everything at one time.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection request (ICR) 3206–0197, Verification of Who is Getting Payments. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415–3500, Attention: Alberta Butler or via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
RI 38–107 is designed for use by the Retirement Inspection Branch when OPM, for any reason, must verify that the entitled person is indeed receiving the monies payable. RI 38–147 collects the same information and is used by other groups within Retirement Operations. Failure to collect this information would cause OPM to pay monies absent the assurance of a correct payee.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206–0121, Application for Deferred Retirement (For persons separated on or after October 1, 1956). As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
OPM 1496A, is used by eligible former Federal employees to apply for a deferred Civil Service annuity.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection (ICR) 3206–0156, Application for Death Benefits (CSRS)/Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits When Deceased Was an Employee at the Time of Death (CSRS). As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Retirement Services, Operations Support, Office of Personnel Management, Union Square Room 370, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Alberta Butler, or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316–AC, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
SF 2800 is needed to collect information so that OPM can pay death benefits to the survivors of Federal employees and annuitants. SF 2800A is needed for deaths in service so that survivors can make the needed elections regarding military service.
The Presidio Trust.
Notice of public meeting of Fort Scott Council.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Fort Scott Council (Council) will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on Monday, August 18, 2014. The meeting is open to the public, and oral public comment will be received at the meeting. The Council was formed to advise the Executive Director of the Presidio Trust (Trust) on matters pertaining to the rehabilitation and reuse of Fort Winfield Scott as a new national center focused on service and leadership development.
The Trust's Executive Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Directors, has determined that the Council is in the public interest and supports the Trust in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix.
The Council will advise on the establishment of a new national center (Presidio Institute) focused on service and leadership development, with specific emphasis on: (a) Assessing the role and key opportunities of a national center dedicated to service and leadership at Fort Scott in the Presidio of San Francisco; (b) providing recommendations related to the Presidio Institute's programmatic goals, target audiences, content, implementation and evaluation; (c) providing guidance on a phased development approach that leverages a combination of funding sources including philanthropy; and (d) making recommendations on how to structure the Presidio Institute's business model to best achieve the Presidio Institute's mission and ensure long-term financial self-sufficiency.
Additional information is available online at
Completion is voluntary, however, the RRB will be unable to provide a PRC or allow a requestor to establish a PIN/Password (thereby denying system access), if the requests are not completed. The RRB proposes no changes to the PRC and PIN/Password screens.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use of the Exchange in order to modify the way that, for purposes of tiered pricing on the Exchange, the Exchange calculates ADAV and average daily TCV (as such terms are defined below).
Currently, the Exchange determines the liquidity adding fee that it will charge to Members based on the Exchange's tiered pricing structure by excluding from the calculation of ADAV
The Exchange excludes these days from the calculation of ADAV and TCV in order to avoid penalizing Members that might otherwise qualify for certain tiered pricing but that, because of special circumstances on a particular day, did not participate on the Exchange to the extent that they might have otherwise participated. Similarly, the Exchange believes that scheduled early market closes, which typically are the day before or after a holiday, may preclude some Members from submitting orders to the Exchange at the same level as they might otherwise. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any of the existing fees or the percentage thresholds at which a Member may qualify for certain fees pursuant to the tiered pricing structure. Rather, as mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to modify its fee schedule to exclude trading activity occurring on any day with a scheduled early market close.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
With respect to the proposed changes to the calculation of tiered pricing for adding liquidity to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because, as explained above, it will help provide Members with a greater level of certainty as to their level of fees for trading in any month where there is a scheduled early market close. The Exchange is not proposing to amend the thresholds a Member must achieve to become eligible for, or the dollar value associated with, the tiered fees. Eliminating the inclusion of any day with a scheduled early market close would, in many cases, be excluding a day that would otherwise lower a Member's ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV. Thus, the proposed change will make the majority of Members more likely to meet the minimum or higher tier thresholds, incentivizing Members to increase their participation on the Exchange in order to meet the next highest tier. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its fee schedule are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents and not unfairly discriminatory as the methodology for calculating ADAV and TCV will apply equally to all Members.
Volume-based tiers such as the liquidity adding tiers maintained by the Exchange have been widely adopted, and are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide higher rebates or lower fees that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. Further, the Exchange believes that a tiered pricing model not significantly altered by a day of atypical trading behavior which allows Members to predictably calculate what their costs associated with trading activity on the Exchange will be is reasonable, fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory as it is uniform in application amongst Members and should enable such participants to operate their business without concern of unpredictable and potentially significant changes in expenses.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed change will help to promote intramarket competition by avoiding a penalty to Members for days when overall trading activity might be significantly lower than a typical trading day. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send 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 the Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has reevaluated the current amount of the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) in light of better than expected trading volume so far in 2014 among other factors. To seek to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs, the Exchange proposes to reduce the ORF from $.0012 per contract to $.0002 per contract. The proposed fee change would be operative on August 1, 2014.
The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each Permit Holder for all options transactions executed or cleared by the Permit Holder that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in a customer account at OCC) regardless of the marketplace of execution. In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions executed by a Permit Holder, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Permit Holder customer options business, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to Permit Holder compliance with options sales practice rules have largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d–2 agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice regulation.
The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies Permit Holders of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed reduction of the ORF is reasonable in that the Exchange is seeking to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs in light of better than expected trading volume so far in 2014 and other factors. The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Permit Holders on all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those Permit Holders that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to help the Exchange to adequately fund its regulatory activities while seeking to ensure that total regulatory revenues do not exceed total regulatory costs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) proposes to amend the Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has reevaluated the current amount of the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) in light of better than expected trading volume so far in 2014 among other factors. To seek to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs, the Exchange proposes to reduce the ORF from $.0095 per contract to $.0086 per contract. The proposed fee change would be operative on August 1, 2014.
The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each Trading Permit Holder for all options transactions executed or cleared by the Trading Permit Holder that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in a customer account at OCC) regardless of the marketplace of execution. In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions executed by a Trading Permit Holder, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Trading Permit Holder customer options business, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to Trading Permit Holder compliance with options sales practice rules have largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d–2 agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice regulation.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange notifies Trading Permit Holders of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed reduction of the ORF is reasonable in that the Exchange is seeking to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs in light of better than expected trading volume so far in 2014 and other factors. The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Trading Permit Holders on all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those Trading Permit Holders that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component (e.g., Trading Permit Holder proprietary transactions) of its regulatory program.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to help the Exchange to adequately fund its regulatory activities while seeking to ensure that total regulatory revenues do not exceed total regulatory costs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Options Rules, Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled “BX Options Market—Fees and Rebates” to amend fees and rebates for various options.
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.
BX proposes to amend certain rebates and fees in Chapter XV, Section 2(1), Fees for Execution of Contracts on the BX Options Market. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Increase the BX Options Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Makers as well as Non-Customers in Penny Pilot
First, the BX Options Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers will increase from $0.45 per contract to $0.46 per contract in all Penny Pilot Options. Penny Pilot Options include two categories of options that are part of the Penny Pilot: (i) Certain options that are specified on the Exchange's pricing schedule
Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the BX Options Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.32 per contract to $0.35 per contract. This change does not apply to Penny Pilot Options overlying the following stocks: BAC, IWM, QQQ and SPY, because there is no rebate in those particular options.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amended BX Options fees are competitive and should encourage BX members to transact business on the Exchange.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The proposed increase in the Fee to Remove Liquidity for BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers from $0.45 per contract to $0.46 per contract in all Penny Pilot Options is reasonable, because it is a very modest increase. In addition, it is similar to the fees charged by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC's NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) (which is $0.48 per contract for xxx [sic]) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX (which charges $0.48 per contract). Similarly, the increase in the Fee for Removing Liquidity for BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers in Non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.88 to $0.89 per contract is also reasonable, because it is a very modest increase, and would result in the same fee as NOM currently charges. These proposed increases are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because they apply to all BX Options Market Makers and Non-Customers in Penny Pilot Options equally.
The proposal to increase the Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.32 per contract to $0.35 per contract is intended to attract additional customer business to BX Options. This, in turn, should bring more liquidity to the BX Options marketplace, which should benefit all market participants. The Exchange believes that the increase in the rebate is reasonable, because it is modest. The rebate has been $0.32 since it was first established in 2012.
The Exchange believes the proposed Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it is available to all Customers. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because the Exchange desires to incentivize participants to transact Customer orders on the Exchange and obtain this rebate. The Exchange believes that this rebate will incentivize members to bring order flow and increase the liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the Exchange also believes that it continues to be reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the Rebate to Remove Liquidity to Customers and not to other market participants as an incentive to attract Customer order flow to the Exchange. As the Exchange stated when adopting this rebate,
Customer order flow benefits all market participants by improving liquidity, the quality of order interaction and executions at the Exchange.
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. To the contrary, BX has designed its fees and rebates to compete effectively for the execution and routing of options contracts. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of twelve U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can and do send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee and rebate program discussed herein is competitive. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace materially impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today and substantially influences the proposal 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.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 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 establish a monthly transaction fee cap of $60,000 for orders that are entered and executed for an account identified by an Electronic Exchange Member for clearing in the OCC “Firm” range “Monthly Firm Fee Cap.” The Monthly Firm Fee Cap is based on the similar fees of another competing options exchange.
The current transaction fees for Firms on the Exchange are $0.25 transaction fee for executions in standard option contracts and $0.025 transaction fee for Mini Option contracts. As proposed, in a single billing month the total amount of transaction fees for Firms would be capped and thus would not exceed $60,000. Members must notify the Exchange in writing of all accounts in which the Member is not trading in its own proprietary account. The Exchange will not make adjustments to billing invoices where transactions are commingled in accounts which are not subject to the Monthly Firm Fee Cap.
Mini Option contracts are not eligible for inclusion in the Monthly Firm Fee Cap. Firm transactions in Mini Options, however, will continue to be executed at the rate of $0.025 per contract. Mini Options contracts are excluded from the Monthly Firm Fee Cap because the cost to the Exchange to process quotes, orders and trades in Mini Options is the same as for standard options. This, coupled with the lower per-contract transaction fees charged to other market participants, makes it impractical to offer Members a transaction fee cap for Firm Mini Option volume that they transact. The Exchange notes that this exclusion is nearly identical to ones made by other exchanges.
The proposed Monthly Firm Fee Cap is intended to create an additional incentive for Firms to send order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed Monthly Firm Fee Cap would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Firms on other exchanges to direct additional orders to the Exchange to allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges for such transactions.
The Exchange proposes to implement the new transaction fees beginning July 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 proposal is fair, equitable and not unreasonably [sic] discriminatory. The proposed Monthly Firm Fee Cap is reasonable because it is designed to be lower than the range of similar transaction fees on another competing
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 proposed fees are lower than the range of similar transaction fees found on other options exchanges; therefore, the Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with robust competition by increasing the intermarket competition for order flow from Firms. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden on non-Firm Members, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the proposal 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. The Exchange believes that the proposal reflects this competitive environment.
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.6, 7.11, 7.16, 7.31, 7.34, 7.35, 7.37 and 7.65 to eliminate certain order types, modifiers and related references. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.6, 7.11, 7.16, 7.31, 7.34, 7.35, 7.37 and 7.65
The Exchange proposes to eliminate, and thus delete from its rules, five Working Orders (and certain related combinations), which are orders, defined in Rule 7.31(h), with a conditional or undisplayed price and/or size.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Passive Discretionary Orders, which are Discretionary Orders that may route to an away market if marketable upon arrival, but otherwise will not route and will not trade through a protected quotation. To reflect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete the following:
• Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A), which defines the order type;
• Rule 7.37(b)(2)(A)(iv),
• the references to Passive Discretionary Orders in Rules 7.11(a)(6), 7.11(a)(6)(C), and 7.37(b)(2)(C).
Second, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Discretion Limit Orders. As defined in Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B), if the discretionary price of a Discretion Limit Order can be matched against trading interest in the NYSE Arca Book, then such order will be executed at the discretionary price or better. If the discretionary price of a Discretion Limit Order can be matched against a Protected Quotation, it would be routed but only if the displayed share size of the Discretion Limit Order is equal to or less than the displayed share size of the away market participant. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B) and references to Discretion Limit Orders in Rules 7.11(a)(6) and 7.11(a)(6)(C).
Third, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Sweep Reserve Orders, which provides for routing the displayed portion of a Reserve Order if the displayed price of a Sweep Reserve Order is marketable against an away market participant(s). Based on User instructions, the order may be routed (1) serially as component orders, such that each component corresponds to the displayed size, or (2) only once in its entirety, including both the displayed and reserve portions. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(h)(3)(A) and delete the references to Sweep Reserve Orders in Rule 7.31(h)(3)(C) and in Rule 7.11(a)(6)(C).
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Random Reserve Orders, which have a random reserve value (expressed in share quantity) that, as a range of round lots, will vary the displayed size of the Reserve Order. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(h)(3)(B) and references to the Random Reserve Order in Rule 7.11(a)(6)(C).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate PL Select Orders, which are Passive Liquidity Orders designated as a PL Select Order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified, undisplayed price. A PL Select Order retains its standing in execution priority among Passive Liquidity Orders but does not interact with incoming orders that (1) have an IOC time in force condition, or (2) are Intermarket Sweep Orders (“ISO”). An incoming PL Select Order that is marketable will execute against all available contra-side interest without restrictions. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(h)(7).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Cross Order Rule to provide that the Exchange will only accept Cross Orders with an Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”) designation. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Cross Order in Rule 7.31(s), which defines a Cross Order as a two-sided order with instructions to match the identified buy-side with the identified sell-side at a specified price, also known as the “cross price,” to add the clause “designated IOC” to clarify that only a Cross Order with such a designation can be entered on the Exchange. Consistent with the current operation of an IOC Cross Order, currently defined in Rule 7.31(aa), the
In connection with this amendment, the Exchange proposes to move text from Rule 7.31(aa)(1)–(3), which governs the operation of an IOC Cross Order, to Rule 7.31(s) and delete Rules 7.31(s)(1)–(5) as moot for the proposed revised definition of a Cross Order, which must be designated IOC and does not route.
The Exchange also proposes to delete Rule 7.16(f)(v)(G), which provides that short sale cross orders priced at or below the current national best bid will be rejected during the Short Sale Period as defined in Rule 7.16(f)(iv). This provision is also moot since a Cross Order with an IOC designation cannot execute at or below the current national best bid.
The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the following six separately-defined Cross Orders.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Midpoint Cross Order, which is a Cross Order priced at the midpoint of the PBBO that will be rejected when a locked or crossed market of Protected Quotations exists in that security. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(y), which defines the Midpoint Cross Order, and delete commentary .04 to Rule 7.6 that includes a reference to Midpoint Cross Orders.
Second, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the IOC Cross Order. By amending Rule 7.31(s) as described above, the Exchange no longer needs to separately define an IOC Cross Order. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(aa), which describes the IOC Cross Order.
Third, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Post No Preference (PNP) Cross Order, which is a Cross Order that is to be executed in whole or in part on the Exchange with any portion not so executed canceled, without routing any portion of the PNP Cross Order to another market center. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(bb).
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Cross-and-Post Order, which is a Cross Order or PNP Cross Order to be executed in whole or in part on the Exchange where any unexecuted portion will be displayed in the NYSE Arca Book at the cross price. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(ff) and, as noted above, delete the references to Cross and Post Order in Rules 7.31(s)(3) and 7.31(s)(5)(B). The Exchange also proposes to delete references to the PNP Cross and Post Orders in Rules 7.37(d)(1) and 7.37(d)(2) governing order execution.
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Portfolio Crossing Service (PCS) Order. A PCS Order is an order to buy or sell a group of securities, which group includes no fewer than 15 securities having a total market value of $1 million or more. Each individual component of a PCS Order resembles a Cross Order, as defined by Rule 7.31(s), but must also include a unique basket number identifying it as a PCS Order eligible for entry into the Portfolio Crossing Service pursuant to Rule 7.65. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(ii), describing the PCS Order, and Rule 7.65, which governs the entry of such orders into the PCS. The Exchange also proposes to remove the reference to the PCS in Rule 7.34(g).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Day Cross Order, which is a Cross Order accompanied by a Day Modifier. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes, as noted above, to restrict entry of Cross Orders to those with an IOC designation by amending Rule 7.31(s). A Cross Order with a Day Modifier would thus be rejected.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the following additional order types and modifiers.
First, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Market to Limit (MTL) Order, which is an un-priced order that, upon receipt, is immediately assigned a limit price equal to the contra NBBO price. To effect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31(rr).
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of an Auction-Only Order to provide that the Exchange will only accept the Auction-Only Orders specified in Rule 7.31(t). An Auction Only Order is currently defined as a limit or market order to be executed during the next auction following entry of the order and, if not executed in the auction that it participates in, the balance is cancelled. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(t) to specify that the only auction-only orders that can be entered on the Exchange are the separately-defined Limit-on-Open Orders (“LOO Order”), Market-on-Open Orders (“MOO Order”), Limit-on-Close Orders (“LOC”), and Market-on-Close Orders (“MOC”). The Exchange also proposes to replace the references to Auction-Only Limit with LOO in Rule 7.35, and delete the references to Auction Only Limit Orders in Rule 7.35(f)(3)(E).
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of a NOW Order to provide that NOW Orders with a Reserve modifier would no longer be accepted. A NOW Order is a Limit Order that is executed in whole or in part on the Exchange with any unexecuted portion routed pursuant to Rule 7.37(d) for immediate execution. If any portion of the routed order is not immediately executed, it will be canceled. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of a NOW Order in Rule 7.31(v) to provide that NOW Orders entered with a Reserve modifier would be rejected.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes that Market Orders with a NOW or IOC modifier would no longer be accepted. Rule 7.31(a) defines a Marker Order as an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be executed at the NBBO when the order reaches the Exchange. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the reference to market orders in the definition of the IOC modifier in Rule 7.31(c)(3), thereby limiting the use of the IOC modifier to limit orders. A Market Order entered with an IOC limitation would therefore be rejected. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of a NOW Order to provide that NOW Orders entered with a Market modifier would be rejected.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify the Mid-Point Liquidity (“MPL”) Order to eliminate the use of a Fill or Kill (“FOK”) modifier with an MPL Order. An MPL Order is a Passive Liquidity Order priced at the midpoint of the PBBO. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of an MPL Order in Rule 7.31(h)(5) to provide that an MPL Order entered with a FOK modifier would be rejected.
The Exchange proposes to delete commentary .04 to Rule 7.6 governing Trading Differentials. The commentary provides an exception for Midpoint Cross Orders and Midpoint Directed Fills. As described above, the Exchange is eliminating the Midpoint Cross Order.
Similarly, Cleanup Orders were recently eliminated.
Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of the elimination of the order types via Trader Update.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would remove obsolete cross-references and remove complex functionality, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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”),
ISE Gemini is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase certain network and gateway fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available 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 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 increase certain network and gateway fees. The Exchange charges an Ethernet fee for its four different Ethernet connection options, which is $500 per month for a 1 Gigabit (“Gb”) connection, $4,000 per month for a 10 Gb connection, $7,000 per month for a 10 Gb low latency connection, and $12,500 per month for a 40 Gb low latency connection.
In addition, the Schedule of Fees currently notes that the network and gateway fees discussed above, as well as certain other non-transaction fees, were waived until January 1, 2014.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange also believes that is appropriate to remove obsolete text about the waiver of non-transaction fees prior to January 1, 2014, as this is a non-substantive change intended to increase the clarity of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use of the Exchange in order to modify the way that, for purposes of tiered pricing on the Exchange's equities trading platform (“BATS Equities”), the Exchange calculates ADV, ADAV, and average daily TCV (as such terms are defined below). Similarly, the Exchange proposes to modify the way that, for purposes of tiered pricing applicable to use of the Exchange's equity options trading platform (“BATS Options”), the Exchange calculates ADV and TCV.
Currently, with respect to BATS Equities, the Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to Members based on the Exchange's tiered pricing structure by excluding from the calculation of ADV,
The Exchange excludes these days from the calculation of ADAV, ADV and TCV in order to avoid penalizing Members that might otherwise qualify for certain tiered pricing but that, because of special circumstances on a particular day, did not participate on the Exchange to the extent that they might have otherwise participated. Similarly, the Exchange believes that scheduled early market closes, which typically are the day before or after a holiday, may preclude some Members from submitting orders to the Exchange at the same level as they might otherwise. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any of the existing rebates or the percentage thresholds at which a Member may qualify for certain rebates pursuant to the tiered pricing structure. Rather, as mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to modify its fee schedule to exclude trading activity occurring on any day with a scheduled early market close from the calculation of ADAV, ADV and TCV.
The Exchange also currently applies a tiered pricing structure to BATS Options, determining the fees charged for removing liquidity and rebates provided for adding liquidity based on ADV,
The Exchange believes that eliminating days with a scheduled early market close from the definition of ADV, ADAV and TCV for BATS Equities and for BATS Options will provide Members with increased certainty as to their monthly cost for trades executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
With respect to the proposed changes to the calculation of tiered pricing for adding liquidity to BATS Equities and for both removing liquidity from and adding liquidity to BATS Options, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because, as explained above, it will help provide Members with a greater level of certainty as to their level of rebates and costs for trading in any month where there is a scheduled early market close. The Exchange is not proposing to amend the thresholds a Member must achieve to become eligible for, or the dollar value associated with, the tiered rebates or fees. Eliminating the inclusion of any day with a scheduled early market close would, in many cases, be excluding a day that would otherwise lower a Member's ADV and/or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV. Thus, the proposed change will make the majority of Members more likely to meet the minimum or higher tier thresholds, incentivizing Members to increase their participation on the Exchange in order to meet the next highest tier. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its fee schedule are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents and not unfairly discriminatory as the methodology for calculating ADV, ADAV and TCV will apply equally to all Members of BATS Equities and equally to all Members of BATS Options.
Volume-based tiers such as the liquidity adding tiers maintained by the Exchange have been widely adopted, and are equitable and not unfairly
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The proposed change will help to promote intramarket competition by avoiding a penalty to Members for days when overall trading activity might be significantly lower than a typical trading day. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BATS–2014–025. 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 ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase certain network and gateway fees. 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
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to increase certain network and gateway fees. The Exchange charges an Ethernet fee for its four different Ethernet connection options, which is $500 per month for a 1 Gigabit (“Gb”) connection, $4,000 per month for a 10 Gb connection, $7,000 per month for a 10 Gb low latency connection, and $12,500 per month for a 40 Gb low latency connection. These Ethernet connectivity options provide access to both the ISE and the ISE's sister exchange, ISE Gemini, LLC (“ISE Gemini”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
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.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to August 15, 2014.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Markita Cooke, U.S. Department of State, Assistance Coordination Office, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, NEA Mail Room—Room 6258, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on 202–776–8309 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Assistance Coordination (AC) Office, established in June 2014, coordinates United States government foreign assistance in the Middle East and North Africa region for the Department of State, and manages the implementation of all the assistance functions within the Department of State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. In fiscal year 2014, the AC office will obligate over $120 million in support of political, economic, education and women's rights reform in 20 countries of the Middle East and North Africa. As a normal course of business and in compliance with 22 U.S.C. 2395(b) and OMB Guidelines contained in Circular A–110, recipient organizations are required to provide, and the U.S. Department of State is required to collect, periodic program and financial performance reports. The responsibility of the Department to track and monitor the programmatic and financial performance necessitates a database that can help facilitate this in a consistent and standardized manner. The NEA/AC Performance Reporting System (PRS) enables enhanced monitoring and evaluation of grants through standardized collection and storage of relevant award elements, such as quarterly progress reports, workplans, results monitoring plans, grant agreements, and other business information related to AC implementers. The PRS streamlines communication with implementers and allows for rapid identification of information gaps for specific projects.
Information will be entered into PRS electronically by respondents.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Anders Cameroon Ostensvig Dale, also known as Muslim Abu Abdurrahman, also known as Abu Abdurrahman the Norwegian, also known as Abu Abdurrahman the Moroccan, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below regarding motorcycle helmet labels has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.
Mr. Check Kam at U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Room W43–451, NVS–113, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Check Kam's telephone number is (202) 366–0247 and fax number is (202) 493–2990.
Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 218, “Motorcycle helmets,” in 1974. Motorcycle helmets are devices used to protect motorcyclists from head injury in motor vehicle crashes. FMVSS No. 218 S5.6 requires that each helmet shall be labeled permanently and legibly in a manner such that the label(s) can be read easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by August 15, 2014.
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by August 15, 2014.
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Background: This request for clearance reflects requirements necessary under parts 135, 121, and 125 to comply with part 119. The FAA uses the information it collects and reviews to insure compliance and adherence to regulations and, if necessary, take enforcement action on violators of the regulations.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Availability of Final Written Reevaluation and Record of Decision.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the Final Written Reevaluation and Record of Decision for a minor adjustment to a project evaluated in FAA's 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the LAX Master Plan is available for public inspection. The Final Written Reevaluation and Record of Decision was prepared for the construction and
David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP–610.1, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009–2007, Telephone: 310/725–3615.
In December 2004, the Los Angeles City Council approved the Master Plan for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). From this Master Plan, the City of Los Angeles, through its Airport Department—Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), prepared an Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The ALP depicts the existing and planned future locations of runways, taxiways, aircraft parking aprons, terminal buildings and other associated facilities on the airport. At the time the ALP was prepared, the LAWA's and Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) focus was on airfield safety to reduce runway incursions. A minor component of the Master Plan included aircraft maintenance. The ALP depicts various existing hangar buildings to be demolished and aircraft maintenance to be consolidated into the southwest quadrant of the airport on the east side of a north/south taxiway called “Taxiway AA.”
LAWA proposes to adjust its LAX ALP to depict the proposed West Aircraft Maintenance Area (WAMA) on the west side of Taxiway AA rather than the east side as originally proposed in the 2005 Final EIS. In May 2014, the FAA prepared a Draft Written Reevaluation for a minor adjustment to a project evaluated in its 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the LAX Master Plan pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
FAA made the Draft Written Reevaluation available to the public and governmental agencies for review and comment from April 25 through May 30, 2014. FAA did not receive any comments on the Draft Written Reevaluation.
Copies of the Final Written Reevaluation and Record of Decision are available for public inspection at the following locations during normal business hours:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Office of the Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261.
The document is also available for public inspection at the following libraries and at the following Web site:
Westchester-Loyola Village Branch Library—7114 W. Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
El Segundo Library—111 W. Mariposa Ave., El Segundo, CA 90245.
Inglewood Library—101 W. Manchester Blvd., Inglewood, CA 90301.
Culver City Library—4975 Overland Ave., Culver City, CA 90230.
49 U.S.C. 47107(h).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Request for comments on proposal to use airport land for non-aeronautical use.
The Federal Aviation Administration is considering a proposal to release approximately 1.0 acres of airport property for non-aeronautical use at the Manchester Regional Airport, Manchester, NH. The acre released is currently used as a buffer zone to adjacent wetlands and would be exchanged for approximately 4.3 acres of land that would be used for the same purpose. In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49 of the United States Code, the FAA invites public comment on this proposal.
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2014.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Thomas Vick, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, New England Region Airports Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. Telephone: 781–238–7618; Fax 781–238–7608.
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106–181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
The Manchester-Boston Regional Airport has requested to release approximately 1.0 acres of airport land from federal obligations and to exchange that acre with approximately 4.3 acres of land currently owned by the Peter J. King Irrevocable Trust of 1988. The 1.0 acres to be released was purchased by the Airport as part of the Trolley Crossing mitigation site for the Airport's previous extension of Runway 35, and is located in the Town of Londonderry, Rockingham County, NH. The parcel is part of a larger property parcel currently depicted on the Airport Layout Plan of record as Number 64. That larger parcel is identified as Town of Londonderry, Rockingham County, Tax Map 14, Lot 49–1. The 1.0 acres in question is located within the larger parcel, and is considered “buffer” to the wetland portion of the Trolley Crossing mitigation site. The approximately 4.3 acres of land that would be exchanged and given to the Airport from the Trust is similar in nature and also serves as buffer to the wetland portion of the Trolley Crossing mitigation site. That 4.3 acre parcel is also located in the Town of Londonderry, NH, within the parcel identified as Tax Map 14, Lot 49.
The Airport has requested this exchange to allow Prologis Management, LLC, to lease and develop approximately 48 acres of the Trust property for a logistics center. The 1.0
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Stillwater Central Railroad, LLC (SLWC), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from the state of Oklahoma (the State), acting through the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), and to operate approximately 97.5 miles of rail line between milepost 438.9 in Sapulpa, Okla., and milepost 536.4 in eastern Oklahoma City, Okla. (the Line).
The State, by and through ODOT, acquired the Line from The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (now known as the BNSF Railway Company) (BNSF), pursuant to an agreement dated February 12, 1998.
SLWC, concurrently with its notice of exemption, filed a petition for waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice requirement under 1150.42(e), asserting that, although ODOT is the owner of the Line, ODOT also is a noncarrier, therefore: (1) No ODOT employees will be affected because no ODOT employees have performed operations or maintenance on the Line; and (2) no SLWC employees will be affected because SLWC will continue to provide the same service and maintenance on the Line as it has been providing since the inception of the lease. SLWC states that the transaction will simply convert SLWC's lease of the Line to an ownership interest. SLWC's waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision.
SLWC states that it intends to consummate the transaction on or after July 31, 2014 (after the effective date of this transaction, which is July 30, 2014). The Board will establish in the decision on the waiver request the earliest date this transaction may be consummated.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35844, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, Suite 225, 655 Fifteenth St. NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an extension of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Office of Financial Stability, within the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning grants to states for low-income housing projects in lieu of tax credits.
Written comments should be received on or before September 15, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jean Whaley, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2045, Washington, DC 20220 or to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Jean Whaley, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2045, Washington, DC 20220 or to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 5 individuals and 7 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
The designations by the Director of OFAC of the 5 individuals and 7 entities in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, are effective on July 10, 2014.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701–1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.
On July 10, 2014 the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice and other relevant agencies, designated, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the Order, 5 individuals and 7 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The listings for these individuals and entities on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons appear as follows:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
a. Application for Cash Surrender, Government Life Insurance, VA Form 29–1546
b. Application for Policy Loan, Government Life Insurance, 29–1546–1.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or FAX (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.