Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements regulations for the Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP-Dairy) and the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP) as authorized in subtitle D of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). MPP-Dairy provides dairy producers with risk management coverage that will pay producers when the difference between the price of milk and the cost of feed (the margin) falls below a certain level. MPP-Dairy provides basic catastrophic level coverage for an administrative fee, and greater coverage for a premium in addition to the administrative fee. Amounts of coverage and premiums vary based on producer selections. This rule specifies the eligibility requirements and payment formulas for MPP-Dairy. Under the related DPDP, which is a complimentary program designed to support producer margins by increasing the price of milk, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will buy dairy products when the margin falls below a certain level, and will distribute those products to individuals in low-income groups through public and private non-profit organizations. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will operate both programs using funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will assist in the distribution of the dairy products under DPDP.
We invite you to submit comments specifically to address the questions related to intergenerational transfers in this document. In your comment, please specify RIN 0560–AI18 and include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier Danielle Cooke, Special Programs Manager, Price Support Division, FSA, USDA, STOP 0512, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, 20250–0512.
All written comments will be available for inspection online at
For MPP-Dairy: Danielle Cooke; telephone: (202) 720–1919. For DPDP purchases: Christine Gouger, telephone: (816) 926–3379. For DPDP donations: Anne Fiala, telephone: (703) 305–2662. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720–2600.
This final rule establishes the regulations for the new MPP-Dairy as specified in sections 1401–1410 of the 2014 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 9051–9060, Pub. L. 113–79). MPP-Dairy provides a risk management program for dairy operations and is authorized through December 31, 2018.
MPP-Dairy is a voluntary risk management program that provides payments when the margin between the national average milk price and a national average feed cost falls below a specified “trigger” level. Eligible producers may purchase coverage for their dairy operations by paying an administrative fee, and a premium as applicable. The coverage is for a dairy operation; all producers in an operation must agree to register the operation for the program in order for that operation to be eligible for MPP-Dairy coverage. MPP-Dairy pays dairy operations when the national margin falls below the operation's selected margin trigger for one of the specified 2-month periods in this rule. As part of the initial registration process, dairy operations must agree to carry MPP-Dairy coverage through calendar year 2018, but they can select a different level of coverage during each annual enrollment period. At the time of registration and annually thereafter, the dairy operation must make coverage level elections. For example, if margins are consistently above the trigger point or the dairy operations decide they want only limited coverage, the operation may switch during the annual enrollment from a coverage level with a higher premium to the catastrophic coverage level with a lower or no premium, but they cannot drop coverage altogether, except in cases where a producer is retiring, dies, or the operation goes out of business.
Any dairy operation that produces and commercially markets milk in the United States may register for MPP-Dairy. As required by the 2014 Farm Bill, to be an eligible dairy operation for MPP-Dairy, each of the producers in an eligible dairy operation must share in the risk of production, and must make contributions (including capital, land, labor, equipment, or management) to the operation commensurate with such producer's share of the proceeds. Participating dairy operations can be operated by more than one producer. A single producer may be member of more than one operation and each operation may separately participate in MPP-Dairy.
This rule specifies that any dairy facility that was part of a single dairy operation that was eligible for and participated in the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program administered by FSA as of February 7, 2014 (date of enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014) is a “dairy operation” for the purposes of MPP-Dairy. All other operations must meet the requirements specified in this rule to be a dairy
For the purposes of this rule, a “new” operation is one that did not produce and commercially market milk at least 12 full months as of February 7, 2014. Under certain circumstances new operations may participate in MPP-Dairy and existing operations can restructure and still be eligible for MPP-Dairy. A dairy operation can be sold or transferred and keep MPP-Dairy eligibility. The main restriction on eligibility for a new operation is that an existing operation that restructures or reconstitutes cannot result in an increase in production history as a whole.
MPP-Dairy payments for a given dairy operation are based on a coverage level and percentage of coverage annually elected by a participating dairy operation for the operation's production history. Such production history for existing operations with at least a year of production history as of February 7, 2014, will be the highest of the operation's annual milk marketings in any one of 2011, 2012, or 2013 calendar years, subject to an annual upward adjustment in subsequent years to reflect any increase in the national average milk production as specified in this rule.
Eligible production history for new operations will be determined by one of two methods, at the election of the dairy operation. The first option is to extrapolate from actual production data for the first calendar year with at least one full month of production history, adjusted using a national seasonality index to calculate a yearly amount of production. The national seasonality index was created by FSA using monthly milk production data for 2009 through 2013. Since milk production naturally fluctuates in some regions during different seasons of the year, the index is needed to extrapolate a full year production amount from partial year production data. To develop the index, the total milk production for the 5 years for each individual month was divided by the total annual milk production for those years to determine the share of annual milk production produced in each month. The resulting figure is the seasonality index that is set for the duration of MPP-Dairy. Alternatively, new operations may choose a second option to determine production history. Under this option, annual production would be estimated based on the herd size of the dairy operation relative to the national “rolling herd average” production data published by the Secretary.
As required by the 2014 Farm Bill, the production history amount established for an operation will never be reduced because of changes in national milk production, but may only be increased. Once a dairy operation has enrolled in MPP-Dairy and the production history is established for that operation, USDA in subsequent years will update the production amount to reflect annual changes in the national average milk production. That adjustment factor will be announced each year.
The production history is established for a participating dairy operation, and it is assigned to that operation, not to an individual producer. If a participating dairy operation, with an established production history, sells or changes ownership of the operation, the established production history will stay with that operation, and be assigned to the new owner. For participating dairy operations, with an established production history, that relocate or otherwise move their operation to another location, the production history will move to the new location. If the new location has existing production history, the production history may be reconstituted that combines the production history of the relocated operation and the new location to the new location and become available for the next calendar year of coverage.
Section 1410 of the 2014 Farm Bill specifies that USDA is required to establish regulations that “prohibit a dairy producer from reconstituting a dairy operation for the purpose of the dairy producer receiving margin protection payments.” This rule therefore prohibits an increase in production history as a result of most restructurings and reconstitutions. Only in cases where a dairy producer purchases a dairy operation with no established production history can a new history be established, subject to the affiliation rule. For example, if a father and son jointly operate a dairy and the son decides to leave and purchase a dairy operation that is already participating in MPP-Dairy with an established production history, the son would get the production history already established by the participating dairy operation and would not be considered a new dairy operation for the purposes of MPP-Dairy. (No new production history would be created; it would only be transferred.) However, if the son purchased a dairy operation that lacked any production history, then the son may be considered a new dairy operation for MPP-Dairy purposes and could establish a new production history for that operation, subject to the affiliation rule.
MPP-Dairy benefits are not subject to payment limitations or average adjusted gross income (AGI) limitations that apply to most FSA and CCC programs. However, these benefits are subject to the conversation compliance requirements provided for in 7 CFR part 12. Further, there is no set program maximum number of pounds any dairy operation can cover under the program. MPP-Dairy's coverage limitation for a specific dairy operation is 90 percent of the operation's production history.
In general, all U.S. dairy producers are eligible to participate in MPP-Dairy through their eligible dairy operation; however, producers cannot participate in both MPP-Dairy and the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy (LGM-Dairy) insurance program administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA). For 2014 and 2015, producers already enrolled in LGM-Dairy may register for MPP-Dairy, but in no case will they receive benefits from both programs. If an operation with LGM-Dairy coverage registers for MPP-Dairy, coverage under MPP-Dairy will not become effective until after the target month of marketings under LGM-Dairy has ended or the dairy operation provides proof that the LGM-Dairy policy has been cancelled.
As part of the annual coverage election process for MPP-Dairy, the dairy operation is required to select the level of coverage and pay an administrative fee and, if applicable, a premium based on the level of coverage elected. In addition, once a participating dairy operation registers for MPP-Dairy, regardless if it fails to make a coverage election, it must annually pay the administrative fee through December 31, 2018. The level of coverage chosen by a participating dairy operation requires two selections. One is the margin trigger (between $4 and $8 per hundredweight (cwt), in 50 cent increments); the other is the percentage of production history that will be covered (from 25 percent to 90 percent, in 5 percent increments). The operation can only select one margin trigger level and one percentage of production history; the operation cannot “split” the operation's coverage and, for example, purchase $4 margin
As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, operations may elect a $4 per cwt margin trigger for the administrative fee of $100 with no premium owed. This rule defines this to be catastrophic level coverage, in that it provides the lowest level of margin protection offered under MPP-Dairy. If $4 margin coverage is selected, 90 percent of production history will be covered, the maximum amount of production coverage allowed by the 2014 Farm Bill. Alternatively, participating dairy operations may elect a higher margin trigger, up to $8 per cwt of milk (in 50 cent increments), for 25 percent to 90 percent of production (in 5 percent increments). Margin triggers higher than $4 require payment of a premium. At each margin trigger level, corresponding rates are different with respect to the first 4 million pounds (40,000 cwt) of covered production history and covered production history above 4 million pounds. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, the premiums for the first 4 million pounds of eligible covered production history will be reduced by 25 percent for each of calendar years 2014 and 2015.
The annual premium rates listed in this regulation are specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA has no discretion to set different premium rates other than those in the 2014 Farm Bill. The premium will be determined based on the producer's election of each of the margin trigger and percentage of coverage. The schedule of premiums below refers to these levels as Tier 1 (first 4 million pounds of production history covered by the program) and Tier 2 (covered production in excess of 4 million pounds).
For example, a dairy operation with a production history of 6 million pounds that elects a coverage level of $6 and a 50 percent coverage percentage will pay a premium based on the premium rate for covered production history for up to 4 million pounds because as a function of the dairy operation election to cover at the 50 percent rate, only 3 million pounds of production history is being covered by the program. (Note that production history is in pounds, while the premium schedule below is per cwt, so we divide covered production by 100 to calculate the premium). Therefore, in this example, the dairy operation pays a premium for a calendar year of coverage during 2016, in the amount of $1,650 based on 6 million pounds covered at a 50 percent coverage level, yielding 3 million pounds of covered production history. The 3 million pounds of production history multiplied by $0.055, the premium at the $6 margin level for covered production up to 4 million pounds (50 percent of 6 million is 3 million; 3 million divided by 100 is 30,000 cwt; 30,000 cwt x $0.055 per cwt =$1,650). The premium schedule is as follows; the 2014 Farm Bill specifies the amounts:
The following is an example with higher coverage levels and both tiers of premium: If a dairy operation with an established production history of 10 million pounds elects a coverage level of $8 and a 75 percent coverage percentage, 7.5 million pounds would be considered covered production history (10,000,000 × 0.75), and of that 7.5 million pounds, 4 million pounds would be assessed at $0.475 rate from the lower (Tier 1) premium schedule for production at 4 million pounds or less (4,000,000 × $0.475/100 = $19,000), and the remaining 3.5 million pounds of covered production history would be assessed at the $1.360 rate from the higher premium schedule for production in excess of 4 million pounds (3,500,000 × $1.360/100 = $47,600). The dairy operation would pay a total premium for a calendar year of coverage in the amount of $66,600 ($19,000 + $47,600) based on 7.5 million pounds of covered production history that falls under each premium schedule at the $8 coverage level.
For calendar years 2014 and 2015, the premium per cwt for covered production that falls under the first 4 million pound premium schedule will be reduced by 25 percent, except at the $8 coverage level, from the table shown above. The premium reduction is required by the 2014 Farm Bill. FSA will provide premium calculators on the FSA Web site, so that producers can evaluate the costs of different coverage options easily.
Registration of a dairy operation under MPP-Dairy results in a multi-year contract between CCC and the dairy operation. As discussed above, dairy operations agree to pay an administrative fee to register and annually thereafter through December 31, 2018. In addition, a participating dairy operation is obligated to pay the premium, if any, associated with its annual coverage elections, through calendar year 2018.
The $4 per cwt margin level coverage is available for a $100 administrative fee, without premium; higher levels of coverage are available for a premium plus the administrative fee. Operations must pay at least half the premium for the year (if applicable), plus the $100 administrative fee, at the time of the election of coverage. Once the election period has ended, a dairy operation's election of coverage is final and it can be changed only for the next calendar year of coverage during the next election period.
The 2014 Farm Bill requires that USDA offer more than one method by which a participating dairy operation may pay the required premium in any manner that maximizes participating dairy operation payment flexibility and program integrity. Unless otherwise determined by the Deputy Administrator, at the time of coverage election, operations must pay either:
(1) The full premium plus the administrative fee; or
(2) A minimum of 50 percent of the total premium (if applicable) plus the administrative fee, with the remaining balance due no later than June 1 of the applicable calendar year of coverage.
However, a premium calculated for calendar year 2014 only (which provides coverage through December of 2014) must be paid in full at the time of coverage election. The coverage election period for 2014 partial year coverage and 2015 full year coverage will both be during the fall of 2014. New operations registered during a calendar year starting in 2015 will be allowed to pay a prorated premium for the first year of participation.
If an operation fails to pay either the required annual administrative fee or premium owed on time, it remains obligated for payment of such administrative fee and entire premium, but will lose coverage until the premium is paid. If an operation does not make an annual coverage level election, it will still be liable for the administrative fee for the following year. It will automatically receive coverage at the $4 coverage level at 90 percent, but only if the administrative fee is paid. For dairy operations that want to continue coverage levels established in the prior calendar year, the Deputy Administrator will establish a procedure to allow such coverage levels to continue that will include the requirement of a timely payment of administrative fees and any premiums, if applicable.
The 2014 Farm Bill specifies what prices for milk and feed USDA is required to use to calculate the “actual dairy production margin.” The margin, based on published USDA national data for milk and feed prices, is used to trigger payments under MPP-Dairy and the authority to make purchases under DPDP. The 2014 Farm Bill requires the margin to be based on the average price received, per cwt of milk, by dairy operations for all milk sold to plants and dealers in the United States. It also requires calculation of a national average feed cost, based on specific sources for the monthly price of corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa hay. Therefore, MPP-Dairy uses USDA-reported monthly national average price data for all classes of milk (the all-milk price) and the cost of the three specified feeds, which represent the bulk of purchased feeds in dairy rations (corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa hay) to calculate the “actual dairy production margin” by subtracting from the price for a cwt of milk produced the cost of an average feed ration used to produce a cwt of milk. The 2014 Farm Bill prescribes that USDA calculate the actual dairy production margin in consecutive 2-month periods.
If the actual dairy production margin falls below the selected margin coverage level of an operation for any such consecutive 2-month period, that operation will be eligible for a payment under MPP-Dairy. For example, if, for a particular consecutive 2-month period, the actual dairy production margin is $6, and the operation has chosen $4 coverage level, there will be no payment, but if the operation had chosen the $7.50 coverage level on 50 percent of production, it would have been paid $1.50 times 50 percent of its covered production history. A recalculation would occur in each subsequent 2-month period. MPP-Dairy pays only on the basis of such 2-month periods; in no case does the program pay for a period of low margins shorter than such 2-month periods.
USDA will calculate the actual dairy production margin using the national “all-milk price” minus the national “average feed cost,” as those terms are specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. If the actual dairy production margin calculation produces a negative number, then the margin will be considered zero. For example, if the cost of feed is higher than the price of milk by $1 per cwt, the margin will be considered to be zero. The term “all-milk price” is defined in the 2014 Farm Bill to mean the average price received, per cwt of milk, by dairy operations for all milk sold to plants and dealers in the United States, as determined by USDA. The term “average feed cost” is defined to mean the average cost of feed used by a dairy operation to produce a cwt of milk using the sum of:
• 1.0728 times the price of corn per bushel;
• 0.00735 times the price of soybean meal per ton; and
• 0.0137 times the price of alfalfa hay per ton.
The 2014 Farm Bill specifies which USDA-published price series FSA is required to use for such prices; FSA has no discretion in what prices to use.
The 2014 Farm Bill requires the margin to be calculated using specific
If a dairy operation has a premium due at the time it becomes eligible for a payment under MPP-Dairy, the premium will be automatically deducted from the payment. If the premium is overdue (past June 1 of the coverage year) however, an operation will not be eligible for a payment, because it will have lost coverage. In the case of an operation with an overdue premium, the operation will regain coverage only after any overdue premium is paid, in which case it would be eligible for the next consecutive 2-month period after such payment of premium.
In addition, this rule provides regulations for DPDP, authorized by section 1431 of the 2014 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 9071). DPDP shares certain goals of MPP-Dairy, in that it is intended to support dairy producer margins by triggering the obligation to purchase dairy products when the dairy production margin fall below a certain level. Under DPDP, USDA will purchase dairy products to support dairy producer margins and to provide such products to individuals in low-income groups through public and private non-profit organizations. The 2014 Farm Bill specifies that such purchases will be made whenever the “actual dairy production margin”, calculated using a formula prescribed in the 2014 Farm Bill, is determined to be $4 or less per cwt for 2 consecutive months.
The 2014 Farm Bill specifies that the same margin calculation is used for both MPP-Dairy and DPDP. The “actual dairy production margin” is, as it is under MPP-Dairy, the difference between the “all-milk price” (the average U.S. price for producer milk sold to plants and dealers as specified in section 1401 of the 2014 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 9051)) and the average feed cost determined using the formula specified in sections 1401 and 1402 (7 U.S.C. 9052) of the 2014 Farm Bill. The feed cost formula is the same as specified for MPP-Dairy, and was discussed above in the MPP-Dairy section of this document. Once triggered, DPDP purchases end when—
• DPDP purchases have occurred for 3 consecutive months (regardless of the actual dairy production margin at the end of those 3 months),
• The actual dairy production margin for the previous month goes above $4 per cwt, or
• The U.S. price for cheddar cheese or nonfat dry milk (NDM) exceeds the world price by certain levels (5 percent if the actual dairy production margin is at or below $4 but above $3 or 7 percent, if such margin is $3 or less).
DPDP is intended to time its purchases to support dairy producers in times of low margins, reinforcing and supporting the dairy producer support provided by MPP-Dairy. Reflecting that relationship, the 2014 Farm Bill specifies that DPDP is required to be established no later than 120 days after the Secretary certifies that MPP-Dairy is operational. USDA has chosen to make the two programs effective at the same time. The Secretary determined that additional time was not required to implement DPDP as FSA and FNS will be able to use existing expertise with purchasing and distributing similar products to the same recipients.
As specified in section 1431 of the 2014 Farm Bill, DPDP purchases will be distributed for domestic consumption by individuals in low-income groups through public and private non-profit organizations. Further, the DPDP purchases cannot be stored by CCC. DPDP purchases will be made in package sizes suitable for immediate household use, to facilitate direct distribution to individuals through participating public and private nonprofit organizations. The 2014 Farm Bill specifically prohibits re-sales of DPDP-purchased products into the commercial market.
The 2014 Farm Bill requires USDA consultation with public and private nonprofit organizations that feed low-income groups, in order to determine the types and quantities of dairy products to be purchased and distributed under DPDP. This will be achieved through existing FNS food program consultations.
This rule implements DPDP as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. DPDP purchases will be made using CCC funds. The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes DPDP through December 31, 2018. As specified in this rule, FSA will operate DPDP for CCC with assistance from FNS.
Distribution of DPDP purchases will be made to public and private non-profit organizations eligible to participate in FNS' food distribution programs for low-income individuals.
Purchase quantities may be limited to meet the 2014 Farm Bill's immediate distribution requirement, taking into account impacts on present demand in order to limit potential short- and long-term market disruptions.
The 2014 Farm Bill specifies that the DPDP purchases are required to start after any consecutive 2 month period when margins are below $4, with a maximum of 3 consecutive months of purchases. If prices rise above the $4 margin level during a month of purchases, DPDP purchases will terminate at the end of that month, so in that case it might operate for only 1 or 2 months. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, after 3 consecutive months of purchases, the DPDP purchases are required to cease (terminate) until there have been at least 2 more consecutive months of margins of $4 or less.
Because full data for a given month is not available until the following month (see example below) and the 2014 Farm Bill requires that program activity be on a monthly basis, this effectively means that no purchases may be made for 3 months following the end of a purchase period, even if margins remain below the trigger level. This rolling “up to 3 months on, 3 months off” procedure for DPDP purchases is consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill goal of having a long-term intermittent tool for addressing low margins and providing nutrition assistance. DPDP is intended to time its purchases to support dairy producer margins by reducing the supply of dairy products. Given relatively inelastic (constant) demand, such purchases should drive the market price of dairy products up, hopefully also driving margins above the trigger level. In some cases, prices and margins will rise sufficiently to engender only a 1or 2-month purchase period. In that case, the 3 month “off” requirement still applies, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill.
Data for calculating the domestic versus world price differential will not be available immediately at the end of a month, so DPDP purchases will not commence or terminate until the full month after all data for a month becomes available. For example, and as shown in the chart below if actual dairy production margins in May and June fall below the “trigger” level, the data for June would be available in July, but not in time to start making DPDP purchases immediately on July 1. Therefore, the DPDP purchases would start in August based on May and June data. If July data, which would be available in August, showed that margins were still below the trigger, DPDP purchases would continue in September. If margins rise above the trigger level in July, the DPDP purchases would terminate at the end of August, and the next eligible month for calculations would be September. If margins in
The trigger level is a $4 margin per cwt of milk, with an additional requirement from the 2014 Farm Bill that USDA's authority for purchases will end if the U.S. price and world price differential for cheddar cheese or nonfat dry milk exceeds certain percentage levels, even when margins remain at $4 or less. In other words, FSA will stop making DPDP purchases, even if the margins are at $4 or less, if the U.S. price for certain dairy products is significantly above world prices. As required by the 2014 Farm Bill, FSA will stop making DPDP purchases if the margin is $4 or less but above $3 and the U.S. price is more than 5 percent above the world price or if the margin is at or below $3, DPDP will not make purchases if the price differential is more than 7 percent.
If DPDP purchases were suspended due to domestic prices being sufficiently above world prices, margins would be tracked for the next 2 months, and purchases could begin after 3 months. For example, at the end of July, it would be known if May and June margins were at or below $4 per cwt. If margins for both May and June were at $4 or less per cwt, and the relation between domestic and world prices did not preclude it, the DPDP purchasing process would start August 1. At the end of August, the July margin could be calculated and if at $4 or less per cwt, DPDP purchases would continue in September (the second consecutive month “on”). If the July margin were above $4 per cwt, DPDP purchase activity would cease August 31, and DPDP purchases could next be made in December (after the required 3 months “off”), if September and October margins were at $4 or less per cwt. If July and August margins were both at $4 or less per cwt, DPDP purchases would continue in September and October and end due to the 3-month maximum of purchases. If November and December margins were at $4 or less per cwt, DPDP purchase activities could begin again in February (after the required 3 months “off”).
DPDP will not stop or start making purchases in the middle of a month even if the margin or the world price data has hit one of the “trigger” numbers mid-month.
The calculations for the price differential determination (which require a comparison of U.S. prices and world prices) as specified in this rule allow FSA to consult with other agencies of USDA that collect foreign and domestic price data, such as the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The 2014 Farm Bill specifies that USDA is required to calculate the differential between U.S. prices and world prices for cheddar cheese and nonfat dry milk; it does not specify what data FSA should use for U.S. prices or world prices. For world prices FSA expects (although not specified in the
FSA intends to post the price calculation method and results, and purchase determinations, on the FSA Web site. If another method proves to be more appropriate for providing information to the public, it will replace the planned on-line posting.
The 2014 Farm Bill requires USDA consultation with public and private nonprofit organizations to determine the types and quantities of products to purchase through DPDP. This requirement will be met by FNS's existing food program consultations with groups involved in the distribution of food to low-income people, including food banks, State and local agencies, and advocacy organizations. DPDP purchases are expected to be made in package sizes suitable for immediate household use, to best accommodate the immediate distribution requirement of the 2014 Farm Bill, in a manner that is cost effective to the U.S. taxpayer.
FSA is requesting comments on how to best administer the dairy product purchases for DPDP to ensure that dairy prices are increased in the most cost effective way. In your comments, please suggest options and provide data to show the cost effectiveness of the suggestion as it relates to the goals of DPDP.
The 2014 Farm Bill requires that products purchased under DPDP will:
• Be distributed in a manner that encourages their domestic consumption by individuals in low-income groups;
• Be distributed using the services of public and private nonprofit organizations; and
• Not be resold back into commercial markets by any organization that receives them.
It is expected that all these requirements will be addressed as specified in the regulations for the existing FNS programs through which the products will be distributed. Public or private nonprofit organizations that receive DPDP products may transfer those products to other nonprofits only if the transferee will likewise distribute to domestic low-income recipients without cost or waste, consistent with existing FNS regulations. FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(d)(1) provide that donated foods “be distributed only to recipient agencies and individual recipients eligible to receive them” under applicable program regulations. FNS regulations in 7 CFR 250.13(a)(1)(ii) provide that donated foods “not be sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of without the approval of the Department.” Any losses of donated foods resulting from improper distribution or use will be subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 250 and the instruction and guidance provided in FNS Instruction 410–1, Rev 2 “Claims for Losses of Donated Foods and Related Administrative Losses—Procedures for the State Distributing Agency,” and in FNS Instruction 420–1, “Managing Agency Debts.”
This rule specifies that DPDP is effective the day this rule is published, in the sense that it provides the regulations and purchase authority necessary to operate DPDP, but FSA will not make DPDP purchases unless other price and margin requirements are met.
Because MPP-Dairy and DPDP use the same definition of actual dairy production margin, which is defined in the 2014 Farm Bill using existing USDA reported data, FSA will have data on actual dairy production margins the day this rule is effective. Therefore, if margins have been at $4 or less for the 2 months before the effective date of this rule, and all other requirements are met for eligible purchase months, including the world price differential, DPDP can begin making purchases the first full month that DPDP is effective.
In preparation of starting to make DPDP purchased, FSA will closely monitor the margins and related information to analyze the potential need for starting DPDP purchases. If the analysis shows that DPDP would be expected to trigger, FSA will consult with FNS, then FNS will determine the types and quantities of products that will be purchased, in consultation with public or private nonprofit organizations and State and local agencies eligible to receive such products. When the list of products and other details, such as size of the packaged products is identified, FSA will analyze various factors, including the expected result on the dairy market of the various purchasing options to determine the best combination and quantity of dairy products to purchase to meet the dual goals of the program: (1) To support dairy producer margins and (2) to provide dairy products to individuals in low-income groups through public and private non-profit organizations. The process of determining the exact combination of dairy products to be purchased and the quantity to purchase will continue through the bid solicitation process to ensure the dual goals of DPDP are achieved at the least cost to taxpayers. FSA will purchase the types and quantities of products determined through this process.
This rule specifies the regulations for MPP-Dairy in 7 CFR part 1430, subpart A, replacing the regulations for the Dairy Product Price Support Program, which is no longer authorized. It specifies the regulations for DPDP in subpart C, replacing the regulations for the 2004 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payments Program, which is also no longer authorized. As part of FSA's ongoing retrospective review efforts, this rule also removes the regulations in subpart D for the Market Loss Assistance Program and subpart E for the 2005 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program, both of which are also no longer authorized.
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
The 2014 Farm Bill exempts CCC from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to MPP-Dairy and DPDP; however, FSA would like to invite comments with respect to
Section 1401(9) of the 2014 Farm Bill and this rule define the term “production history” as the production history determined for a dairy operation when a participating dairy operation first registers to participate in MPP-Dairy. Section 1405(a) provides, except as provided in section 1405(b), the production history of the dairy operation is equal to the highest annual milk marketings of the dairy operation during any one of the 2011, 2012, or 2013 calendar years, with an adjustment in subsequent years to reflect any increase in national average milk production. Section 1405(b) provides that in the case of a participating dairy operation that has been in operation for less than a year, the dairy operation elect one of two methods for the Department to determine the production history of the dairy operation:
• The volume of the actual milk marketings extrapolated to a yearly amount, or
• An estimate of actual milk marketings based on the herd size relative to the national rolling average data.
The provisions in this regulation are consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill.
The 2014 Farm Bill provisions regarding MPP-Dairy and the rule do not address the establishment of additional production history for a participating dairy operation in specific instances, such as an inter-generational transfer or when a family member joins a participating dairy operation. Other statutory provisions of MPP-Dairy do suggest that Congress intended to benefit smaller dairy operations, which tend to be family owned and operated. These provisions include the establishment of lower premium rates for insured annual production of less than 4,000,000 pounds. This rule does not take into account the size and structure of the dairy operation in determining whether the operation can adjust its production history to assist small, family dairy operations, especially with intergenerational transfers of the operation. FSA invites interested parties to address whether the regulation should be amended to authorize the establishment of additional production history, and if so, whether limitations should be imposed on any increases. Specifically, FSA requests comments on the following questions; please include any data that supports your comments:
1. Does the provision in the rule regarding transfers of production history hinder intergenerational transfers of dairy operations? If so, how?
2. How would you suggest the rule be amended to accommodate intergenerational transfers or adult children who want to join their parent's dairy operation and obtain additional production history for the dairy operation?
3. If additions to production history based on intergenerational transfers or adult children joining family dairies are allowed, should there be a cap on the overall amount of production history that cannot be exceeded or a percentage or quantity limitation on the amount by which the production history could be increased per participating dairy operation under this provision? If so, what amount?
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule is required to be published in the
Section 1431 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires that DPDP be operational no later than 120 days after MPP-Dairy, but as discussed above, USDA decided to make DPDP effective at the same time as MPP-Dairy, so as not to delay needed assistance to dairy operations and low income groups. A 30 day delay in the effective date would unnecessarily delay needed assistance to dairy operations and individuals in low income groups.
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 emphasized 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 economically significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. This regulatory action is being taken to implement two programs required by the 2014 Farm Bill. A summary of the cost-benefit analysis of this rule is provided below and the full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.
The current actual dairy production margin is about $12, so neither DPDP nor MPP-Dairy would have any cost in the first month. If current milk prices and cattle feed prices continue through the end of 2018, the payments to dairy producers from the government via MPP-Dairy and DPDP will be zero. Any program payments would be more than offset by MPP-Dairy premiums and fees. However, in the event of prolonged low margins, programs outlays could exceed $100 million per year.
If actual margins vary significantly from mean projections used for the 2015 President's Budget Midsession Review, DPDP is expected to trigger twice during the 2015 to 2018 period and total cost is expected to be about $400 million over the 4-year period, for an average cost of $100 million per year. That is a net cost to the government for both MPP-Dairy and DPDP, meaning the projected total payments to producers and the cost of the dairy products purchased minus the MPP-Dairy fees and premiums paid to CCC. Nearly all of the impacts estimated in this analysis are transfers between entities within society. For example, DPDP results in an average annual cost to the government of about $30 million for dairy product purchases (cost side of the transfer), which would be balanced by low income individuals receiving $30 million worth of free dairy products (benefit side of the transfer).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment
The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). FSA has determined that the provisions identified in this final rule are administrative in nature, intended to clarify the mandatory requirements of the programs, as defined in the 2014 Farm Bill, and do not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. The few discretionary features of the rules include establishing deadlines, determinations of eligibility and prices, and purchase procedures, and have been selected largely based on pre-existing USDA programs. While these dairy programs are new, their creation is mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill, and are therefore not subject to review under NEPA. The few discretionary provisions left for FSA to determine were all purely administrative and would not alter any environmental impacts resulting from implementing the mandatory programs. Therefore, as this rule presents administrative clarifications only, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action.
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. For reasons specified in the final rule related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule will not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 are to be exhausted.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to 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 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. 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 mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule is a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (Pub. L. 104–121, SBREFA). SBREFA normally requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Section 808 of SBREFA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. Section 1601(c)(3) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that the authority in section 808 of SBREFA be used in implementing the changes required by Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill, such as for the changes being made by this rule. Consistent with section 1601(c)(3) of the 2014 Farm Bill, FSA therefore finds that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule, because it would delay implementation MPP-Dairy as required in the 2014 Farm Bill. The regulation needs to be effective to provide adequate time for producers to be ready to begin the sign-up process in a timely fashion to allow coverage to begin by September 1, 2014. Therefore, the rule is effective when published in the
The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
The regulations in this rule are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in subsection 1601(c)(2)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill, which provides that these regulations be promulgated and administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
FSA and CCC are 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.
Dairy products, Fraud, Penalties, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the regulations at 7 CFR part 1430 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8773, 9051–9060, and 9071 and 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
The regulations in this subpart apply for the Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP-Dairy), which is authorized by sections 1401 through 1410 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–79, 7 U.S.C. 9051–9060). MPP-Dairy is intended to provide eligible dairy producers risk protection against low margins resulting from a combination of low milk prices and high feed costs.
(a) MPP-Dairy is administered under the general supervision of the Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, and will be carried out by Farm Service Agency (FSA) State and county committees and employees.
(b) State and county committees and their employees may not waive or modify any requirement of this subpart.
(c) The State committee will take any action required when not taken by the county committee, require correction of actions not in compliance, or require the withholding of any action that is not in compliance with this subpart.
(d) The Executive Vice President, CCC, or a designee, may determine any question arising under MPP-Dairy or reverse or modify any decision of the State or county committee.
(e) The Deputy Administrator, Farm Programs, FSA, may waive or modify MPP-Dairy requirements not statutorily required when failure to meet such requirements does not adversely affect the operation of MPP-Dairy.
(f) A representative of CCC will execute a contract for registration in MPP-Dairy and related documents under the terms and conditions determined and announced by the Deputy Administrator on behalf of CCC. Any document not under such terms and conditions, including any execution before the date authorized by CCC, will be null and void.
The definitions in this section are applicable for the purposes of administering MPP-Dairy established by this subpart.
(1) Has risk in the production of milk in the dairy operation; and
(2) Makes contributions, including land, labor, management, equipment, or capital, to the dairy operation at least commensurate to the producers' share of the operation.
(a) The eligibility requirements for a dairy operation to register in MPP-Dairy and receive payments under this subpart, are to:
(1) Produce milk from cows in the United States that is marketed commercially at the time of each annual election in MPP-Dairy;
(2) Submit accurate and complete information as required by the this subpart;
(3) Provide proof of milk production marketed commercially by all persons in the dairy operation to establish production history;
(4) Not participate in the Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy (LGM-Dairy) Program administered by the USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1536), except to the extent permitted by this subpart, provided that under no circumstance may the operation receive coverage for the same period in MPP-Dairy for which payments have been received or earned under LGM-Dairy; and
(5) Pay required administrative fees for participation in MPP-Dairy as specified in this subpart and any premiums, if applicable, as specified in this subpart.
(b) A person or entity covered by § 1400.401 of this chapter (hereafter “foreign person”) must meet the eligibility requirements contained in that section to receive payments under this part. A dairy operation with ineligible foreign persons as members will have any payment reduced by the proportional share of such members.
(c) Federal agencies and States, including all agencies and political subdivisions of a State, are not eligible for payments under this subpart.
(d) As specified in § 1430.104, each dairy operation is required to submit a separate registration to be eligible for MPP-Dairy coverage and payment. A producer who owns more than one eligible dairy operation may participate separately for each dairy operation; each eligible dairy operation must be registered separately, subject to the affiliation test for new operations.
(e) A new dairy operation will be treated as an affiliated dairy operation and not be treated as a separate dairy operation under MPP-Dairy if producers that collectively own more than 50 percent of the new dairy operation also collectively own more than 50 percent interest in another dairy operation registered in MPP-Dairy.
(a) A dairy operation may register to participate in MPP-Dairy by submitting a contract prescribed by CCC. Dairy operations may obtain a blank contract in person, by mail, or by facsimile from any county office. In addition, dairy operations may download a copy of the forms at
(b) Dairy operation shall submit completed contracts and any other supporting documentation during the annual election period established by the Deputy Administrator, to the administrative county office serving the dairy operation.
(1) A new dairy operation that has been established after the most recent election period is required to submit a contract within the first 90 calendar days from the date on of which the dairy operation first commercially markets milk and may elect coverage that begins the next consecutive 2-month period following the approval date of the registration and coverage election; or
(2) A new dairy operation that does not meet the 90 day requirement of
(c) Registration requests and coverage elections are to be submitted in time to be received at FSA by the close of business on the last day of the annual election period established by the Deputy Administrator.
(1) The applicable year of coverage for contracts arising from accepted registrations in the annual election period will be the following calendar year, except for 2014, where the election and coverage year will be the same.
(2) Registration requests and coverage elections submitted after the applicable allowed time for submission will not be considered.
(3) During an annual election period, participating dairy operations may change coverage elections for the following calendar year.
(d) To receive margin protection coverage, separate registrations are required for each separately constituted dairy operation. If a dairy producer operates more than one separate and distinct operation, the producer registers each operation for each operation to be eligible for coverage.
(e) A participating dairy operation must elect, during the applicable annual election period and by using the form prescribed by CCC, the coverage level threshold and coverage percentages for that participating dairy operation for the applicable calendar year.
(1) Once the initial completed registration is submitted and approved by CCC, it cannot be cancelled by the participating dairy operation through December 31, 2018; however, each calendar year subsequent to the initial registration of the participating dairy operation, it may elect to change the coverage level threshold and coverage percentage, on a form prescribed by CCC, during the election period for the applicable subsequent calendar year. For dairy operations that want to continue coverage levels established in the prior calendar year, the Deputy Administrator will establish a procedure to allow such coverage levels to continue that will include the requirement of a timely payment of administrative fees and any premiums, if applicable.
(2) If the operation fails to file an update of its election during the annual election period, the coverage level will be reduced to the catastrophic level coverage, but such coverage will only be provided if the participating dairy operation pays the annual administrative fee for the relevant calendar year.
(3) All producers in the participating dairy operation must agree to the coverage level threshold and coverage percentage elected by the dairy operation.
(f) By registering to participate or receive payment under MPP-Dairy, producers in the participating dairy operation certify to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information in their applications and supporting documentation.
(1) All producers in a participating dairy operation must sign and certify all submissions made under MPP-Dairy that relate to the level of coverage.
(2) All information provided is subject to verification. FSA may require a dairy operation to provide documentation to support all verifiable records. Furnishing the information is voluntary; however, without it MPP-Dairy benefits will not be approved. Providing a false certification to the Federal Government may be punishable by imprisonment, fines, other penalties, or sanctions.
(g) At the time the completed contract is submitted to FSA for the first year in which the dairy operation is to participate in MPP-Dairy, the dairy operation must also submit a separate form, as specified by CCC, to establish the production history for the dairy operation.
(a) A participating dairy operation must provide all information required by FSA to establish the production history of the participating dairy operation for purposes of participating in MPP-Dairy. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section relating to new dairy operations, FSA will establish the production history for a dairy operation for margin protection as the highest annual milk marketings of the participating dairy operation during any one of the 2011, 2012, or 2013 calendar years.
(1) All producers in the participating dairy operation are required to provide adequate proof of the dairy operation's quantity of milk commercially marketed, to establish the production history for the dairy operation.
(2) All information provided is subject to verification, spot check and audit by FSA. If the dairy operation does not provide to the satisfaction of FSA documentation requested to substantiate the production history of the highest annual milk marketings for the participating dairy operation, then, the registration will not be approved.
(b) A participating dairy operation that did not produce and commercially market milk at least 12 full months as of February 7, 2014, will be considered a new dairy operation. To establish the production history for such a new dairy operation the new dairy operation is required to elect one of the following methods:
(1) The volume of the actual milk marketings for the months the dairy operation has been in operation, extrapolated to a yearly amount based on a national seasonally adjusted index, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, to account for differences in milk production during the year; or
(2) An estimate of the actual milk marketings of the dairy operation based on the herd size of the dairy operation relative to the national rolling herd average data published by the Secretary.
(c) If FSA determines that the new enterprise was formed for the purpose of circumventing MPP-Dairy provisions, including, but not limited to, reconstituting a dairy operation to receive additional benefits, or establishing new production history, that enterprise will not be considered a new dairy operation for the purpose of establishing production history.
(d) Once the production history of a participating dairy operation is established under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, the production history will be adjusted upward by FSA only to reflect any increase in the national average milk production, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.
(e) The production history may be transferred from one dairy facility to another:
(1) Producers of a dairy operation may relocate the dairy operation to another location and the production history of the original operation may be transferred to the new location and may be added to production history at the new location that has not been transferred;
(2) Producers of a dairy operation may transfer ownership of a dairy operation with its associated production history, but if the producers start a new operation such new operation may only be eligible for new production history if the new operation is otherwise not affiliated with participants in MPP-Dairy as described in § 1430.103(e); or
(3) Producers of more than one dairy operation that separately participate in MPP-Dairy may transfer the production histories of these dairy operations into a previously unregistered dairy operation.
(f) If CCC waives the obligation, under MPP-Dairy of a participating dairy operation due to death or retirement of the producer or of the permanent
(a) Dairy operations must pay an initial administrative fee to FSA in the amount of $100 to participate in MPP-Dairy at the time of initial registration to participate. Each approved participating dairy operation must also pay a $100 administrative fee each year through December 31, 2018. Annual administrative fees are due and payable to FSA through the administrative county FSA office no later than the close of business on the last day of the annual election period established by the Deputy Administrator for each applicable calendar year of margin protection coverage under MPP-Dairy. The administrative fee paid is non-refundable.
(b) The required annual administrative fee is per dairy operation. Therefore, multiple dairy producers in a single unit participating dairy operation are required to pay only one annual administrative fee for the participating dairy operation. Conversely, in the case of a dairy producer that operates more than one dairy operation, each participating dairy operation is required to pay a separate administrative fee annually.
(c) Failure to pay the administrative fee timely will result in loss of margin protection coverage for the applicable calendar year. The payment will still be due, as provided in § 1430.109.
(a) For purposes of receiving MPP-Dairy coverage, a participating dairy operation may annually elect during an annual election period the following for the succeeding calendar year:
(1) A coverage level threshold for margins that, per cwt, is equal to one of the following: $4, $4.50, $5, $5.50, $6, $6.50, $7, $7.50, or $8; and
(2) A percentage of coverage for the production history from 25 percent to 90 percent, in 5-percent increments.
(b) In the absence of any such election, the applicable coverage level provided, with no premium due, is catastrophic level coverage.
(c) A participating dairy operation that elects margin protection coverage above $4 is required to pay an annual premium based on coverage level and covered production history in addition to the administrative fee. Tier 1 applies to covered production history up to and including 4 million pounds; Tier 2 applies to covered production history above 4 million pounds.
(d) The premium per cwt of milk, based on the elected percentage of coverage of production history is specified in the following tables.
(e) The annual premium due for a participating dairy operation is calculated by multiplying:
(1) The covered production history; and
(2) The premium per cwt of milk specified in paragraph (d) of this section
(f) In the case of a new dairy operation that first registers to participate in MPP-Dairy for a calendar year after the start of the calendar year, the participating dairy operation is required to pay a pro-rated premium for that calendar year based on the portion of the calendar year for which the participating dairy operation is eligible, and for which it purchases the coverage.
(g) The total annual premium for a participating dairy operation calculated as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section for calendar year 2014, is due in full at the time the contract is submitted to FSA during the open election period applicable for calendar year 2014, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. For subsequent calendar years, a participating dairy operation is required to pay the annual premium calculated as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section for the applicable calendar year, unless otherwise determined by the Deputy Administrator, according to either of the following options:
(1) In total at time of submission of coverage election to FSA; or
(2) In installments, with a minimum of 50 percent at the time of submission of coverage election to FSA and the remaining balance due no later than June 1 of the applicable calendar year of coverage.
(h) If a minimum of 50 percent of the premium is not paid by the end of an open election period for an applicable calendar year of coverage, the participating dairy operation will only be covered at catastrophic level coverage, except that the participating dairy operation will have no coverage whatsoever if the administrative fee for the applicable calendar year of coverage has not been timely paid.
(i) Annual premium balances due to FSA from a participating dairy operation for a calendar year of coverage must be paid in full no later than June 1 of the applicable calendar year. Premium balances due, but not in arrears, prior to June 1 will be deducted from any MPP-Dairy payment(s) made to the participating dairy operation during the applicable calendar year of coverage.
(j) A participating dairy operation with an unpaid premium balance after June 1 for a calendar year of coverage will lose eligibility for coverage as provided in § 1430.109.
(k) The Deputy Administrator may waive the obligation to pay the premium, or refund the premium paid, of a participating dairy operation for a calendar year, in cases that include, but are not limited to, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, death, retirement, permanent dissolution of a participating dairy operation, or other circumstances determined by the Deputy Administrator.
(l) MPP-Dairy administrative fees and premiums are required to be paid by a negotiable instrument satisfactory in form to the Deputy Administrator and made payable to FSA and either mailed to or provided in person to the administrative county office or other location designated by FSA.
(a) An MPP-Dairy payment will be made to a participating dairy operation for any consecutive 2-month period when the average actual dairy production margin for the consecutive 2-month period falls below the coverage level threshold in effect for the participating dairy operation.
(b) The MPP-Dairy payment to an eligible participating dairy operation relative to the qualifying 2-month period will equal the product obtained by multiplying:
(1) The amount by which the coverage level in effect for the participating dairy operation exceeds the average actual dairy production margin for the applicable 2-month period;
(2) The coverage percentage in effect for the participating dairy operation; and
(3) The production history of the participating dairy operation, divided by 6.
(c) For any coverage period, a participating dairy operation can for all of its production select only one coverage level threshold between $4 and $8 (in 50 cent increments) per hundredweight under § 1430.107(a)(1); and only one percentage for its production history between 25 percent and 90 percent (in 5 percent increments) under § 1430.107(a)(2).
(a) A participating dairy operation that fails to pay a required administrative fee or premium payment due upon application to MPP-Dairy or for a calendar year of coverage:
(1) Remains legally obligated to pay such administrative fee or premium, as applicable; and
(2) Upon such failure to pay when due, loses coverage under MPP-Dairy until such administrative fee or premium is paid in full, and once paid, coverage will begin with the next consecutive 2-month period.
(b) CCC may take such actions as necessary to collect unpaid administrative fees and premium payments.
(a) Payments are made to a participating dairy operation as specified in this subpart only when, for a consecutive 2-month period, the calculated average actual dairy production margin is below the coverage level in effect for the participating dairy operation. That margin will be calculated on a national basis and is the amount by which for the relevant consecutive 2-month period, the all milk price exceeds the average feed cost for dairy producers. All calculations will be made on a per cwt basis. The average actual dairy production margin calculation applies to all participating dairy operations. The calculations are not made on an operation by operation basis or on their marketings.
(b) For calculating the national average feed cost that dairy operations use to produce a cwt of milk, the following three items will be added together:
(1) The product determined by multiplying 1.0728 by the price of corn per bushel;
(2) The product determined by multiplying 0.00735 by the price of soybean meal per ton; and
(3) The product determined by multiplying 0.0137 by the price of alfalfa hay per ton.
(c) To make those feed calculations, the Deputy Administrator on behalf of CCC will use the following full month data:
(1) For corn, the full month price received by farmers during the month in the United States as reported in the monthly Agricultural Prices report by USDA NASS;
(2) For soybean meal, the Central Illinois soybean meal price delivered by rail as reported in the USDA AMS Market News-Monthly; and
(3) For alfalfa hay, the full month price received during the month by farmers in the United States for alfalfa hay as reported in the monthly Agricultural Prices report by USDA NASS.
(d) The national average feed cost data for corn, soybean meal, and alfalfa hay used in the calculation of the national average feed cost to determine the actual dairy production margin for the relevant period, will be the data reported in the publication the following month. (For example, preliminary May prices for corn and soybean meal were reported in the May Agricultural Prices publication but full month May prices will be
(e) The actual dairy production margin for each consecutive 2-month period, will be calculated by subtracting:
(1) The average feed cost for that consecutive 2-month period, determined under paragraph (b) of this section; from
(2) The all-milk price for that consecutive 2-month period.
(a) In general, a producer may participate in either MPP-Dairy through a dairy operation or the LGM-Dairy program operated by RMA, but not both. However, since MPP-Dairy is first being made available after potential applicants may have already applied for 2014 or 2015 coverage under LGM-Dairy, for the annual election period for MPP-Dairy established for the 2014 and 2015 calendar year coverage only, a producer with coverage under LGM-Dairy that wishes to participate through their dairy operation in MPP-Dairy, is required to:
(1) Register the dairy operation to participate in MPP-Dairy during the annual election period established for calendar year 2014 and 2015, as established by the Deputy Administrator;
(2) Agree not to extend or obtain new LGM-Dairy coverage;
(3) Acknowledge in writing at the time of registration that no MPP-Dairy payment will be made to the dairy operation for any month included in any period for which any producer in the dairy operation has LGM-Dairy coverage; and
(4) Pay applicable administrative fees in the same manner as other participating dairy operations by paying fees and premiums that may be prorated by the Deputy Administrator to reflect the limited period of coverage.
(b) Margin protection coverage under MPP-Dairy will not become effective until after the target month of marketings under LGM-Dairy has ended by natural expiration of the LGM-Dairy agreement or by an RMA-allowed cancellation. Any applicable premium for the participating dairy operation will be prorated based on the remaining months of the applicable calendar year of coverage following the month the LGM-Dairy target month has ended.
(c) MPP-Dairy payment may only trigger after the target month of marketings under LGM-Dairy has ended.
(d) A participating dairy operation will be required to provide proof, to the satisfaction of FSA, of the cancellation or expiration of the LGM-Dairy policy based on the final month of target marketings under the LGM-Dairy policy.
(a) Participating dairy operations enrolled in MPP-Dairy are enrolled until December 31, 2018. As such, a participating dairy operation is obligated to pay initial and annual administrative fees and applicable premiums each succeeding calendar year following the date the contract is first entered into through December 31, 2018.
(b) Failure to pay administrative fees and premiums will result in the loss of coverage, and the participating dairy operation remains obligated to pay such administrative fees and premiums as provided in § 1430.108.
(c) If a participating dairy operation goes out of business as described in § 1430.107(k) before December 31, 2018, the contract will be terminated immediately, except with respect to payments accrued to the benefit of the participating dairy operation under this subpart before such termination.
(a) Producers in a participating dairy operation must notify FSA immediately of any changes that may affect their participation in MPP-Dairy under this subpart. Changes include, but are not limited to death of a producer on the contract, producer joining the operation, producer exiting the operation, relocation of the dairy operation, transfer of shares by sale or other transfer action, or dairy operation reconstitutions as provided in § 1430.114.
(b) Payment of any outstanding premium or administrative fee for a participating dairy operation must be paid in full before a transfer of shares by sale or any other change in producers on the contract originally submitted to FSA may take effect. Otherwise, producer changes will not be recognized until the following annual election period, and only if at that time all associated premiums and administrative fees from any previous calendar year of coverage have been paid in full.
(a) A participating dairy operation under this subpart may reorganize or restructure itself in such a way that the constitution or makeup of its operation is reconstituted in another organization framework. However, any participating dairy operation that reorganizes or restructures after enrolling is subject to a review by FSA to determine if the operation was reorganized or restructured for the sole purpose of establishing an alternative production history for a participating dairy operation or was reorganized or restructured to otherwise circumvent any MPP-Dairy provision under this subpart (including the tier system for premiums) or otherwise to prevent the accomplishment of the purpose of the program.
(b) A participating dairy operation that FSA determines has reorganized solely to establish a new production history or to circumvent the determination of applicable fees or premiums based on an established production history determined under this subpart will be considered to have failed to meet MPP-Dairy requirements and, in addition to other sanctions or penalties that may apply, will not be eligible for MPP-Dairy payments.
(c) Under no circumstance, except as approved by the Deputy Administrator or provided for in these regulations, will the reconstitution or restructure of a participating dairy operation change the determined production history for the operation. The Deputy Administrator may, however, adjust the production history of a participating dairy operation if there is a calculation error or if erroneous information has been supplied by or on behalf of the participating dairy operation.
FSA may offset or withhold any amount due FSA under this subpart under the provisions of part 1403 of this chapter or any successor regulations, or any other authorities that may allow for collection action of that sort.
Any producer may assign a payment to be made under this subpart in accordance with part 1404 of this chapter or successor regulations as designated by the Secretary or as allowed by the Deputy Administrator in writing.
Any producer who is dissatisfied with a determination made pursuant to this subpart may request reconsideration or appeal of such determination under parts 11 or 780 of this title.
(a) In addition to other penalties, sanctions or remedies as may apply, all or any part of a payment otherwise due a person or legal entity on all participating dairy operations in which the person or legal entity has an interest may be withheld or be required to be refunded if the person or legal entity fails to comply with the provisions of
(1) Concealing information that affects an registration or coverage election;
(2) Submitting false or erroneous information; or
(3) Creating a business arrangement using rental agreements or other arrangements to conceal the interest of a person or legal entity in a dairy operation for the purpose of obtaining MPP-Dairy payments the individual or legal entity would otherwise not be eligible to receive. Indicators of such business arrangement include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) No milk is produced and commercially marketed by a participating dairy operation;
(ii) The participating dairy operation has no appreciable assets;
(iii) The only source of capital for the dairy operation is the MPP-Dairy payments; or
(iv) The represented dairy operation exists mainly for the receipt of MPP-Dairy payments.
(b) If the Deputy Administrator determines that a person or legal entity has adopted a scheme or device to evade, or that has the purpose of evading, the provisions of this subpart, such person or legal entity will be ineligible to receive MPP-Dairy payments in the year such scheme or device was adopted and the succeeding year.
(c) A person or legal entity that perpetuates a fraud, commits fraud, or participates in equally serious actions for the benefit of the person or legal entity, or the benefit of any other person or legal entity, in violation of the requirements of this subpart will be subject to a 5-year denial of all program benefits. Such other equally serious actions may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Knowingly engaging in, or aiding in the creation of a fraudulent document or statement;
(2) Failing to disclose material information relevant to the administration of the provisions of this subpart, or
(3) Engaging in any other actions of a person or legal entity determined by the Deputy Administrator to be designed, or intended to, circumvent the provisions of this subpart.
(d) Program payments and benefits will be denied on pro-rata basis:
(1) In accordance with the interest held by the person or legal entity in any other legal entity or joint operations; and
(2) To any person or legal entity that is a cash rent tenant on land owned or under control of a person or legal entity for which a determination of this section has been made.
(a) MPP-Dairy documents executed by producers legally authorized to represent estates or trusts will be accepted only if such producers furnish evidence of the authority to execute such documents.
(b) A minor who is otherwise eligible for benefits under this subpart is also required to:
(1) Establish that the right of majority has been conferred on the minor by court proceedings or by law;
(2) Show that a guardian has been appointed to manage the minor's property and the applicable MPP-Dairy documents are executed by the guardian; or
(3) Furnish a bond under which the surety guarantees any loss incurred for which the minor would be liable had the minor been an adult.
In the case of death, incompetency, disappearance or dissolution of a producer that is eligible to receive benefits under this subpart, such persons as are specified in part 707 of this title may receive such benefits, as determined appropriate by FSA.
(a) Participating dairy operations are required to maintain accurate records and accounts that will document that they meet all eligibility requirements specified in this subpart, as may be requested by CCC or FSA. Such records and accounts are required to be retained for 3 years after the date of MPP-Dairy payments to the participating dairy operation. Destruction of the records 3 years after the date of payment will be at the risk of the party undertaking the destruction.
(b) A participating dairy operation is required to allow authorized representatives of CCC, the Secretary, or the Comptroller General of the United States to have access to the premises of the dairy operation in order to inspect the herd of cattle, examine, and make copies of the books, records, and accounts, and other written data as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Any producer or dairy operation that does not comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, or that otherwise receives a payment for which it is not eligible, is liable for that payment and is required to repay it to FSA, with interest to run from the date of disbursement.
(a) Any legal entity, including joint operations, joint ventures and partnerships, and any member of a legal entity determined to have knowingly participated in a scheme or device, or other such equally serious actions to evade, or that has the purpose of evading the provisions of this part, will be jointly and severally liable for any amounts determined to be payable as the result of the scheme or device, or other such equally serious actions, including amounts necessary to recover the payments.
(b) Any person or legal entity that cooperates in the enforcement of the provisions of this part may be partially or fully released from liability, as determined by the Executive Vice President, CCC.
(c) The provisions of this section will be applicable in addition to any liability that arises under a criminal or civil statute, regulation, or provision of law.
The provisions of part 12 of this title apply to this part.
The provisions of § 718.6 of this title apply to this part.
(a) The regulations in this subpart apply for the Dairy Product Donation Program (DPDP). DPDP is authorized by section 1431 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–79, 7 U.S.C. 9071).
(b) DPDP is designed to address low dairy producer margins, through periodic purchases of dairy products, as specified in this subpart. Dairy products purchased for DPDP will be used to
(c) The purchase aspect of DPDP will be operated for the Secretary of Agriculture and for the Commodity Credit Corporation by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) under the direction of the FSA's Deputy Administrator for Commodity Operations. Purchases are subject to the terms and conditions in FSA's purchase announcements. The distribution of products purchased through DPDP will be operated for the Secretary under the direction of the Food and Nutrition Service.
For purposes of this subpart, the following terms and acronyms apply:
(a) DPDP purchases commence only if approved by the FSA Administrator under the provisions of this subpart. The FSA Administrator will approve DPDP purchases only if the actual dairy production margin has been $4 or less per cwt for each of the preceding 2 months. The actual dairy production margin will be calculated as specified in § 1430.110. The following chart shows an example of the timing for the determination of DPDP purchases.
(b) DPDP purchases terminate and are not reinstated until the condition specified in paragraph (a) of this section is again met, whenever any one of the following occurs:
(1) If purchases were made for the preceding 3 months, even if the actual dairy production margin remains $4 or less per cwt of milk.
(2) If the actual dairy production margin has been greater than $4 per cwt of milk for the immediately preceding month.
(3) If the actual dairy production margin has been $4 or less, but more than $3, per cwt for the immediately preceding month and during the same month —
(i) The price in the United States for cheddar cheese was more than 5 percent above the world price, or
(ii) The price in the United States for non-fat dry milk (NDM) was more than
(4) If the actual dairy production margin has been $3 or less per cwt of milk for the immediately preceding month and during the same month —
(i) The price in the United States for cheddar cheese was more than 7 percent above the world price; or
(ii) The price in the United States for NDM was more than 7 percent above the world price of skim milk powder.
(c) Purchases will terminate beginning with the first day of any month that does not qualify for DPDP purchases.
(d) For calculations under paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, the FSA Administrator may use data from a single or multiple locales or markets, including weighted averages, in consultation with AMS or other USDA agencies.
(a) DPDP purchases will be made only for those months that the FSA Administrator has determined meet all the requirements specified in § 1430.302. The purchases are subject to DPDP requirements including price and quantity restrictions specified in this subpart.
(b) The Secretary has the authority to determine purchase and distribution methods for dairy product purchases and distribution. Unless otherwise determined by the Secretary, this authority is delegated to the Deputy Administrator in consultation with FNS.
(c) FSA and FNS will determine the types and quantities of products that will be purchased, in consultation with public or private nonprofit organizations and State and local agencies eligible to receive such products.
(d) The FSA Administrator will determine the quantity of purchases to be made for a qualifying month and will consider the results of any consultations in determining the quantity to be purchased. In making the determination, the FSA Administrator will also take into account a number of factors, including, but not limited to, dairy product market conditions, logistical considerations involved in the efficient and immediate distribution of the dairy products, the potential effect on markets and margins, time constraints of DPDP, and the cost effectiveness of the purchases. Approved quantities for a month will not exceed the amount of product that may be effectively distributed without waste.
(e) Purchases may be approved for a qualifying month to the extent that the purchase by FSA can reasonably be expected to be completed in that calendar month and the products delivered to recipient agencies within 90 days.
(f) DPDP purchases cannot be stored by or for CCC, and CCC cannot incur storage costs on behalf of recipient agencies for the dairy products.
(g) The purchase price of products will be the prevailing market price for like dairy products for private buyers as determined by the Deputy Administrator. That price may be, if approved by the Deputy Administrator, the price determined by the normal procurement methods used to procure foods for FNS domestic food assistance programs, if the dairy products are obtained that way.
(a) Purchased products will be distributed to private and public nonprofit organizations eligible to receive donated foods for distribution to low-income groups through FNS' food distribution programs as specified in FNS program regulations and the requirements in 7 CFR part 250.
(b) Public and private nonprofit organizations receiving donated dairy products under this section will be responsible for the proper handling and distribution of such products in accordance with FNS program regulations, 7 CFR part 250, and FNS guidance and instructions.
(c) A private or nonprofit organization agency receiving donated products under this section which improperly distributes or uses such product or causes loss of or damage to such product, will be subject to recovery of losses or other corrective action in accordance with FNS program regulations, 7 CFR part 250.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a final rule that was published in the
This correction is effective August 29, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0276 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Arlette Howard, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–1481, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954–4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, June 03, 2010.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite the most recent Presidential notice extending an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a procedural rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
The rule is effective August 29, 2014.
William Arvin, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482–2440.
Authority for all parts of the EAR other than part 745 rests, in part, on Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001—National Emergency with Respect to Export Control Regulations, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 and on annual notices extending the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on August 7, 2014.
This rule is purely procedural, and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and patents, Research, Science and technology.
Exports.
Exports, Terrorism.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Forests and forest products, Horses, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Penalties.
Boycotts, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Science and technology.
Accordingly, parts 730, 732, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 743, 744, 746, 747, 748, 750, 752, 754, 756, 758, 760, 762, 764, 766, 768, 770, 772 and 774 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730–774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014).
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or “FTC”) is amending its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by updating the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (the “Registry”) as required by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007.
The revised fees will become effective October 1, 2014.
Copies of this document are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site:
Ami Joy Dziekan, (202) 326–2648, BCP, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room CC–9225, Washington, DC 20580.
To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–188, 122 Stat. 635) (“Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry as follows: the revised rule
These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008. The Act also states that any increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar and that there shall be no increase in the dollar amounts if the change in the CPI is less than one percent. For fiscal year 2009, the Act specified that the original annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data was $54 per area code, or $27 per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period, and that the maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data would be $14,850.
The determination whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee change involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2014. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 1.56 percent. Because this change is over the one percent threshold, the fees will change for fiscal year 2015.
Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above, the percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 was 234.966, an increase of 10.99 percent. Applying the 10.99 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to an increase from $59 to $60 in the fee from last year for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2015. The actual amount is $59.93, but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, the amount is $60. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year remains $30 (rounded from $29.97). The maximum amount charged increases to $16,482.02 (rounded to $16,482).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the Amended TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084–0097. The amendments outlined in this Final Rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the Amended TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the Amended TSR.
Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 6101–6108; 15 U.S.C. 6151–6155.
(c) The annual fee, which must be paid by any person prior to obtaining access to the National Do Not Call Registry, is $60 for each area code of data accessed, up to a maximum of $16,482;
(d) Each person who pays, either directly or through another person, the annual fee set forth in § 310.8(c), each person excepted under § 310.8(c) from paying the annual fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), will be provided a unique account number that will allow that person to access the registry data for the selected area codes at any time for the twelve month period beginning on the first day of the month in which the person paid the fee (“the annual period”). To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the first six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under § 310.8(c) must first pay $60 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under § 310.8(c) must first pay $30 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. The payment of the additional fee will permit the person to access the additional area codes of data for the remainder of the annual period.
By direction of the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation
This rule is effective from September 6, 2014 to September 14, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2014–0717]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Ian M. Fallon, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203) 468–4565,
The Great Peconic Race is a first time event with no regulatory history.
The Region 8 Beach Brawl is a first time event with no regulatory history.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to publish a NPRM and solicit comments from the public before these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory special local regulations and safety zones.
As discussed in the
The Great Peconic Race course itself will start and end at Wades Beach on Shelter Island proceeding in a counter-clockwise direction to the east around Mashomack Point, and encompass a complete circumnavigation of Shelter Island, a total distance of 19 miles. On the south shore two event safety vessels will be present with a member of the south ferry staff with a red flag to stop and then wave paddlers on for safe crossing. One safety boat will be present on the north shore to assist paddlers as well.
The Region 8 Beach Brawl is a two day marine event held close to the shore of Savin Rock Beach in West Haven, CT. During the event, multiple jet-skis will be running a closed loop course approximately 600 feet by 1,000 feet in size. There will three support craft supervising the event and will be using flags to control the race participants.
The Coast Guard is establishing one special local regulation for one regatta, and one safety zone for another regatta, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. This rule will be effective from September 6, 2014 to September 14, 2014.
The special local regulation and safety zone for these events covered by this regulation will be enforced on the dates, times, and locations listed in the table below.
For the special local regulation created in support of the Great Peconic Race under the general regulations in § 100.901 of this part, vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant at all times. Additionally, recreational vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by event representatives during the event. Commercial vessels will have right-of-
For the safety zone created in support of the Region 8 Beach Brawl this rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone.
Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The enforcement of the regulated area and safety zone will be relatively short in duration. Also, persons or vessels desiring entry into a regulated area or a deviance from the stipulations within a regulated area may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Additionally, persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Furthermore, the special local regulation and the safety zone are designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic, permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterways not designated as a regulated area or as a safety zone. Finally, to increase public awareness of the special local regulation and the safety zone, the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated area or the safety zone during the periods of enforcement from September 6, 2014 to September 14, 2014. However, this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
This rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of one special local regulation and one safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and (h) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recording requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
(e)
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d) Vessels desiring to enter or operate within a safety zone should contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or by telephone at (203) 468–4401 to obtain permission to do so. Vessels given permission to enter or operate in a safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated on-scene representative.
(e) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Venice Avenue Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 56.6, Venice, FL. This temporary operating schedule will allow the bridge to not open to navigation including tugs with tows, during the Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon scheduled for the second Sunday of November, for the safety of the participants.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. November 8, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0354] is available at
If you have questions about this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Danielle Mauser, Bridge Transportation Assistant, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch; telephone 305–415–6946, email
In order to accommodate the annual Sarasota Iron Man Triathlon, a temporary schedule deviation has been authorized for the Venice Avenue Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 56.6 in Venice, FL. This deviation is in effect from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on November 8, 2014. During this time, the bridge shall remain closed to navigation, including tugs with tows. Currently, the bridge opens as required per 33 CFR 117.287 (a–2), which states “the draw of the Venice Avenue bridge, shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The draw need open only at 10 minutes after the hour, 30 minutes after the hour and 50 minutes after the hour, except between 4:35 p.m. and 5:35 p.m.” The regulation changes may have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Venice, FL, but will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation.
The Venice Avenue Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. Also, vessels capable of using the Gulf of Mexico as an alternate route may do so in lieu of transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at mile 56.6 in Venice, FL from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. November 8, 2014. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterways through Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately following the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the normal operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Southport SR27 Bridge across Townsend Gut, mile 0.7, between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine. The bridge owner, Maine Department of Transportation will be performing structural repairs at the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to operate on a temporary schedule for eleven weeks to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from September 8, 2014 through November 22, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0762] is
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (617) 223–8364,
The Southport SR27 Bridge, across Townsend Gut, mile 0.7, between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet above mean high water and 19 feet above mean low water. The bridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.537.
The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial fishing boats.
The bridge owner, Maine Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate deck repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the Southport SR27 Bridge shall operate as follows: From September 8, 2014 through November 22, 2014, the draw shall open on signal at 12 a.m., 3 a.m., 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., 6 p.m., and 9 p.m. The draw shall remain in the closed position from 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. on twelve dates to be announced in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNTM) and via a broadcast notice to mariners (BNTM), at least two weeks prior to each closure date. There is an alternate route for navigation around Southport. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at all times.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek, and the Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel, both at Hempstead, New York. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2014 Dee Snider's Ride to Fight Hunger on Long Island. The deviation allows the two bridges to remain in the closed position during this public event.
This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. through 1 p.m. on September 7, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0743] is available at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 668–7165,
The Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(f).
The Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(h). Long Creek and Sloop Channel are transited by commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic.
The bridge owner for both bridges, the State of New York Department of Transportation, requested bridge closures to facilitate a public event, the 2014 Dee Snider's Ride.
Under this temporary deviation the Loop Parkway and the Meadowbrook Parkway Bridges may remain in the closed position between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 7, 2014, to facilitate a public event, the 2014 Dee Snider's Ride.
There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time. The bridges may be opened in the event of an emergency.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and or Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Port Allen Canal, mile 8.7 (Gulf Intracoastal Canal, Morgan City to Port Allen (Alternate Route), mile 56.0), near Morley, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for five hours on three consecutive days. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance and install new track panels on the bridge.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Tuesday September 9, 2014 through noon on Thursday, September 11, 2014.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2014–0744] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504–671–2128, email
The Union Pacific Railroad Company has requested a temporary deviation in order to conduct maintenance and install track panels on the Union Pacific Railroad Vertical Lift Span Bridge across the Port Allen Canal, mile 8.7 (Gulf Intracoastal Canal, Morgan City to Port Allen (Alternate Route), mile 56.0), near Morley, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to noon from Tuesday, September 9, 2014, until Thursday, September 11, 2014.
The bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows. Alternate routes are not readily available. The bridge owner can open the bridge in case of an emergency. The repairs are necessary for continued safe operation of the draw span.
Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the bridge 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 94.0 to mile marker 95.0 above head of passes (AHP). This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from potential safety hazards associated with a barge based fireworks display in the Lower Mississippi River at mile marker 94.4 AHP. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:15 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on September 13, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2014–0531]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) James Gatz, Sector New Orleans, at (504) 365–2281 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and unnecessary. The Coast Guard received information about this fireworks display on or about July 25, 2014. As scheduled, the display would take place before the full NPRM process could be completed. Because of the dangers presented by an aerial barge based fireworks display taking place on and over the waterway, it is in the public interest to establish this safety zone to protect transiting vessels and mariners. Completing the full NPRM process would delay the establishment of this safety zone, which is necessary to protect life and property from the possible dangers and hazards associated with a nighttime waterway based fireworks display. Delay would also unnecessarily interfere with possible contractual obligations. While it is in the public's best interest to provide this safety measure, the impacts on navigation are expected to be minimal as the safety zone will only be in effect for a short duration.
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule
Pyrotecnico, a company specializing in fireworks displays, informed the Coast Guard of a fireworks display sponsored by Malena Badon and planned for September 13, 2014. The fireworks will be launched from a barge located at MM 94.4 AHP on the Lower Mississippi River. This display will take place between 8:15 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on September 13, 2014 in a high commercial traffic area near a tight river bend. Therefore, the Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is needed to ensure safe navigation for all those in the vicinity of the fireworks display. This safety zone is established to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the hazards associated with a barge based fireworks display on and over the waterway.
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River from 8:15 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on September 13, 2014. The safety zone will include the entire width of the Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA, from MM 94.0 to MM 95.0 AHP. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP New Orleans, or a designated representative.
The COTP New Orleans will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule. Mariners and other members of the public may also contact Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Command Center to inquire about the status of the safety zone, at (504) 365–2200.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This safety zone will restrict navigation on the Lower Mississippi River from MM 94.0 to MM 95.0 AHP, for approximately forty-five minutes on September 13, 2014. Due to the limited scope and short duration of the safety zone, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Lower Mississippi River from MM 94.0 to MM 95.0 AHP between 8:15 and 9:00 p.m. on September 13, 2014. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is limited in scope and will only be in effect for approximately forty-five minutes on one day. Before enforcement, COTP New Orleans will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river and will make notifications to the public through marine band radio when the safety zone is being enforced. Additionally, deviation from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 94.0 to MM 95.0 AHP. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04.6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans or designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.
(2) Vessels requiring deviation from this rule must request permission from the COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or 67, or through Coast Guard Sector New Orleans at 504–365–2200.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from this safety zone regulation and enter the restricted area must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP New Orleans or designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Fox River in Menasha, Wisconsin. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Fox River due to a fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
This rule is effective and will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 6, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2014–0748. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, contact or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at 414–747–7148 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display, which are discussed further below.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
During the evening of September 6, 2014, the Coast Guard anticipates that a fireworks display will occur from two floating platforms positioned on the Fox River in Menasha, Wisconsin. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling and flaming debris, and collisions among passing vessel traffic and the firing platforms.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the fireworks display in Menasha, Wisconsin. This rule is effective and will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on September 6, 2014. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Fox River near Menasha, Wisconsin within a 600-foot radius of approximate position 44°11′59.5″ N, 088°25′54.3″ W (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will only impact a small area and will be enforced for less than two hours on one day in September, 2014. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port or her designated on-scene representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Fox River during the times that this zone is enforced on September 6, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a USS MIDWAY private fireworks display on October 6, 2014. This marine event occurs on the navigable waters of San Diego Bay, immediately to the west of the USS MIDWAY located in San Diego Bay, California. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations for the marine event listed as Item 6 in Table 1 to 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced on October 6, 2014 from 9:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
If you have questions about this document, call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278–7233, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in San Diego Bay for the private fireworks display. This display occurs on October 6, 2014 from 9:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m., off of the moored attraction vessel, USS MIDWAY. Fireworks displays occur frequently off of the USS MIDWAY, and the corresponding safety zone to the fireworks display is published in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 6.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the 600 foot regulated area safety zone that includes the tug and barge unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels or commercial traffic within the federal channel. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in patrol and notification of this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. In addition to providing notice in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC. This action is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the hazards posed by fireworks displays. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Shallowbag Bay River during the Outer Banks Bluegrass Festival Fireworks display.
This rule is effective August 29, 2014 and will be enforced from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014 unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Derek J. Burrill, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone (910) 772–2230, email
On May 17, 2013 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone, Shallowbag Bay; Manteo, NC” in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. This notice is issued under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
On September 26, 2014 fireworks will be launched from a barge located in Shallowbag Bay in Manteo, North Carolina as part of the Outer Banks Bluegrass Festival. The temporary safety zone created by this rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Such hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause death, serious bodily harm, or property damage, as well as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch area will help ensure the safety of persons and property in the vicinity of this event and help minimize the associated risks.
A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of the Outer Banks Bluegrass
The safety zone will encompass all waters on Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of a barge anchor in approximate position 35°54′31″ N, longitude 075°39′42″ W from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the regulated area during the fireworks display.
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector North Carolina or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Notification of the temporary safety zone will be provided to the public via marine information broadcasts.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 26, 2014, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and (iii) although the safety zone will apply to the section of Shallowbag Bay, vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or anchor in the specified portion of Shallowbag Bay on September 26, 2014.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be in effect for two hours, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Although the safety zone will apply to a section of Shallowbag Bay, vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule establishes a temporary safety zone to protect the public from fireworks fallout. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through any portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, or a designated representative, unless the Captain of the Port previously announced via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio channel 22 (157.1 MHz) that this regulation will not be enforced in that portion of the safety zone. The Captain of the Port can be contacted at telephone number (910) 343–3882 or by radio on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of kasugamycin in or on fruit, pome. Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC (Arysta LifeScience), requested a number of tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) which are addressed in this document.
This regulation is effective August 29, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 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–2010–0297, 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
• 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 EPA's tolerance regulations at 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–2010–0297 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 October 28, 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–2010–0297, 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
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the proposed tolerance levels and the crops for which tolerances will be established. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C. The tolerance in imported fruiting vegetables, crop group 8 is not being removed or revised at this time. This regulation additionally deletes the time-limited tolerance for apple, as the tolerance will be superseded by permanent tolerances in the various pome fruits.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 kasugamycin on pome commodities, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with kasugamycin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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.
Kasugamycin is a member of the aminoglycoside family of antibiotics, which also includes streptomycin and gentamicin. These agents inhibit bacterial protein synthesis by binding to the 30S subunit of the bacterial ribosome. Their penetration through the cell membrane of the bacterium depends partly on oxygen-dependent active transport by a polyamine carrier system that seems to be absent in mammalian systems.
Kasugamycin exhibits low acute toxicity, being only a mild dermal and ocular irritant. The major effects observed across species in multiple-dose studies were decreased body weights and body weight gains. The primary target organs identified for kasugamycin were the testes and kidney in the rat and mouse. However, these effects were only seen at higher dose levels, generally at the highest dose tested (HDT). In the combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, the basis for the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was an increased incidence and severity of testicular tubular atrophy, observed during the histopathologic examinations at the end of the 2-year dosing period, as well as at 6 months, and 1 year. Testicular degeneration and atrophy
Kidney toxicity is often associated with exposure to aminoglycoside antibiotics, and the metabolism study indicated higher levels of radioactivity in the kidneys than other tissues. In male F1 rats in the reproductive toxicity study, dilatation of the kidney, and an increased incidence of chronic progressive nephropathy were observed. In the subchronic rat study, an increased incidence of eosinophilic bodies (graded slight for severity) in the renal proximal tubular cells was reported in males at several dose levels. These effects were considered treatment related, but not adverse due to their low severity grade, and lack of associated findings. However, in female rats, increased epithelial cells in the urinary sediment, along with decreased urine pH (decreased pH was also seen in males), were observed at the high dose, and considered evidence of possible kidney toxicity. Lipofuscin deposition (slight) was observed in the rat combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study, but was not considered adverse due to the lack of other related findings; this study tested up to the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of the subchronic study. In the mouse, following subchronic exposure, minimal to severe basophilia/hyperplasia in the renal
There was no evidence that exposure to kasugamycin results in neurotoxicity, and a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is not required. Also, there was no evidence of immune system effects based on the review of a submitted immunotoxicity study. Although a 28-day rat inhalation toxicity study was not submitted, EPA has determined that it is not required based on available hazard and exposure information.
The database is complete with respect to pre- and postnatal toxicity, and shows no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the offspring, or in the developing fetus. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female mice, nor in male and female rats at doses that were adequate to assess the carcinogenic potential of kasugamycin. There was no evidence of mutagenicity. Based on the overall weight of the evidence, kasugamycin is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
Although antimicrobial drug residues present in or on food may cause adverse effects on the ecology of the intestinal microflora of consumers, the Agency does not believe this is a concern for kasugamycin because of the use pattern (application occurring prior to fruit development) and low residue detection in field trials.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by kasugamycin as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern (LOC) 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 NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. 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
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of kasugamycin for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.001178 ppm for surface water. EDWCs of kasugamycin for ground water were estimated to be 0.000116 ppm via the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–GROW) system. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.001178 ppm was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Kasugamycin is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for kasugamycin is complete, including rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity screening studies and a mouse immunotoxicity study. Based on the lack of observed neurotoxicity, a DNT study is not required. Furthermore, a 28-day inhalation study is not required based on the available hazard and exposure information and proposed and existing uses for kasugamycin.
ii. There is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative pre- and/or postnatal susceptibility observed in developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, or in a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat.
iii. The exposure assessment for food and drinking water will not underestimate potential dietary exposure to kasugamycin. There are no proposed or existing residential uses for kasugamycin.
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.
Adequate enforcement methodology high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
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 Nations 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 kasugamycin.
As EPA explained in its latest crop group rulemaking published in the
Based on the available residue data and using the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedure, EPA is establishing a tolerance of 0.20 ppm for residues of kasugamycin in or on fruit, pome (crop group 11–10).
EPA also is not establishing tolerances for walnuts and fruiting vegetables because the petitioner withdrew its tolerance requests for those commodities.
The Agency has revised the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.614(a) to clarify:
1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of kasugamycin not specifically mentioned.
2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of kasugamycin, in or on pome fruits (crop group 11–10) at 0.20 ppm. This regulation additionally deletes the time-limited tolerance for apple, as the tolerance will be superseded by permanent tolerances in the various pome fruits.
This final rule establishes tolerances 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.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Oklahoma's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This final authorization will become effective on October 28, 2014 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by September 29, 2014. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy Oklahoma's application and associated publicly
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, (214) 665–8533, EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, and Email address
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
We conclude that Oklahoma's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Oklahoma Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Oklahoma has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders. Also section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”), Public Law 109–59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The State of Oklahoma did not apply for authorization to administer Indian Country in this authorization document. New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibition in Oklahoma including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Oklahoma subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Oklahoma has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits and
• take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Oklahoma is being authorized by today's action is already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action.
The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
Oklahoma initially received final Authorization on January 10, 1985, (49 FR 50362–50363) published December 27, 1984 to implement its base hazardous waste management program. We authorized the following revisions: Oklahoma received authorization for revisions to its program with publication dates: April 17, 1990 (55 FR 14280–14282), effective June 18, 1990; September 26, 1990 (55 FR 39274) effective November 27, 1990; April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13411–13413) effective June 3, 1991; September 20, 1991 (56 FR 47675–47677) effective November 19, 1991; September 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854–50856) effective November 29, 1993; October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679–52682) effective December 13, 1993; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51116–51122) effective December 21, 1994; January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2699–2702) effective April 27, 1995; October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52884–52886) effective December 23, 1996; Technical Correction March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100–12101) effective March 14, 1997; September 22, 1998 (63 FR 50528–50531) effective November 23, 1998; March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16528–16532) effective May 30, 2000; May 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981–29985) effective June 10, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 28–33) effective March 5, 2001; April 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308–17311) effective June 9, 2003 and February 4, 2009 (74 FR 5994–6001); (66 FR 18927–18930) effective June 6, 2011, March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15273–15276) effective May 14, 2012 and effective July 29, 2013, May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161–32165). The authorized Oklahoma RCRA program was incorporated by reference into the CFR published on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67800–67834) effective February 8, 1999, August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46567–
The Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act (“OHWMA”) provides the ODEQ with the authority to administer the State Program, including the statutory and regulatory provisions necessary to administer the provisions of RCRA Cluster XXII, and designates the ODEQ as the State agency to cooperate and share information with EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation. The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code (“Code”), at 27 A O.S. Section 2–7–101 et seq. establishes the statutory authority to administer the Hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C. The State regulations to manage the Hazardous waste management program is at Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252 Chapter 205.
The DEQ adopted applicable Federal hazardous waste regulations as amended through July 1, 2011 which became effective July 1, 2013. The provisions for which the State of Oklahoma is seeking authorization are documented in the Regulatory Documentation For Federal Provisions For Which The State Of Oklahoma Is Seeking Authorization, Federal Final Rules Published Between July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 RCRA Cluster XXII prepared on June 24, 2013.
The DEQ incorporates the Federal regulations by reference and there have been no changes in State or Federal laws or regulations that have diminished the DEQ's ability to adopt the Federal regulations by reference as set forth in the authorizations at 77 FR 22229 through 22232 effective May 14, 2012 for RCRA Cluster XXII. The Federal Hazardous waste regulations are adopted by reference by the DEQ at OAC 252:205, Subchapter 3. The DEQ does not adopt Federal regulations prospectively.
The State Oklahoma Hazardous waste program has in place the statutory authority and regulations for all required components of Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarification rule (Checklist 228) in RCRA Cluster XXII. These statutory and regulatory provisions were developed to ensure the State program is equivalent to, consistent with and no less stringent than the Federal Hazardous waste management program.
The Environmental Quality Act, at 27A O.S. Section 1–3–101(E), grants the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) authority to regulate certain aspects of the oil and gas production and transportation industry in Oklahoma, including certain wastes generated by pipelines, bulk fuel sales terminals and certain tank farms, as well as underground storage tanks. To clarify areas of environmental jurisdiction, the ODEQ and OCC developed an ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional Guidance Document to identify respective areas of jurisdiction. The current ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional Guidance Document was amended and signed on January 27, 1999. The revisions to the State Program necessary to administer Cluster XXII will not affect the jurisdictional authorities of the ODEQ or OCC.
The ODEQ adopted RCRA Cluster XXII applicable federal hazardous waste regulations as amended through July 1, 2012 and became effective on July 1, 2013. The rules were also codified at OAC 252:205 et seq., Subchapter 3.
Pursuant to OAC 252:205–3–1, the State's incorporation of Federal regulations does not incorporate prospectively future changes to the incorporated sections of the 40 CFR, and no other Oklahoma law or regulation reduces the scope of coverage or otherwise affects the authority provided by these incorporated-by-reference provisions. Further, Oklahoma interprets these incorporated provisions to provide identical authority to the Federal provisions. Thus, OAC Title 252, Chapter 205 provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than the Federal Subtitle C program in effect July 1, 2012. The State of Oklahoma incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124 of 40 CFR that are required by 40 CFR 271.14 (with the addition of 40 CFR 124.19(a) through (c), 124.19(e), 124.31, 124.32, 124.33 and subpart G); 40 CFR parts 260–268 [with the exception of 260.21, 262 subparts E and H, 264.1(f), 264.1(g)(12), 264.149, 264.150, 264.301(1), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), 264.1080(e), 264.1080(f), 264.1080(g), 265.1(c)(4), 265.1(g)12), 265.149, 265.150, 265.1030(c), 265.1050(f) 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), 265.1080(g), 268.5, 268.6, 268.13, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a) through (g)]; 40 CFR part 270 [with the exception of 270.1(c)(2)(ix and 270.14(b)(18)]; 40 CFR part 273; and 40 CFR part 279.
The DEQ is the lead Department to cooperate and share information with the EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation.
Pursuant to 27A O.S. Section 2–7–104, the Executive Director has created the Land Protection Division (LPD) to be responsible for implementing the State Program. The LPD is staffed with personnel that have the technical background and expertise to effectively implement the provisions of the State program subtitle C Hazardous waste management program.
On June 28, 2013, the State of Oklahoma submitted final complete program applications, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that the State of Oklahoma's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. The State of Oklahoma revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal Hazardous waste revisions promulgated between July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 which is in (RCRA Cluster XXII). Oklahoma requirements are included in a chart with this document.
There are no State requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.
Oklahoma will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Oklahoma is not yet authorized.
Section 8 U.S.C. 1151 does not affect the State of Oklahoma because under section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”), Public Law 109–59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). However, the State of Oklahoma is not seeking authorization to administer authorization under RCRA Subtitle C in this FR document.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart LL for this authorization of Oklahoma's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. The reference to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) is also exempt from review under Executive orders 12866 (56 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes preexisting requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
This document makes amendments to the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) in order to make editorial changes.
Leigh Pomponio via email at
An interim rule was published in the
In order to correct certain elements in 48 CFR part 1852, this document makes editorial changes to the NFS.
Government procurement.
Therefore, NASA amends 48 CFR part 1852 as set forth below:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
A.
1.
(a)
(b)
2.
(a)
(b)
3.
(a)
(b)
4.
(a)
(b)
5.
(a)
(b)
6.
7.
(a)
(b)
8.
(a)
(b)
9.
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
10.
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
11.
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
12.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
B.
1.
(a) A boated turtle should be placed on a cushioned/support device, as specified in paragraph A.6. of this Appendix F, in an upright orientation to immobilize it and facilitate gear removal. Then, it should be determined if the hook can be removed without causing further injury. All externally embedded hooks should be removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury to the turtle. No attempt to remove a hook should be made if it has been swallowed and the insertion point is not visible, or if it is determined that removal would result in further injury. If a hook cannot be removed, as much line as possible should be removed from the turtle using monofilament cutters as specified in paragraph A.11. of this Appendix F, and the hook should be cut as close as possible to the insertion point before releasing the turtle, using bolt cutters as specified in paragraph A.10. of this Appendix F. If a hook can be removed, an effective technique may be to cut off either the barb, or the eye, of the hook using bolt cutters, and then to slide the hook out. When the hook is visible in the front of the mouth, a mouth-opener, as specified in paragraph A.12. of this Appendix F, may facilitate opening the turtle's mouth and a gag may facilitate keeping the mouth open. Short-handled dehookers for internal hooks, or long-nose or needle-nose pliers, as specified in paragraphs A.7. and A.8. of this Appendix F, respectively, should be used to remove visible hooks from the mouth that have not been swallowed on boated turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as possible must be removed from the turtle without causing further injury prior to its release. Refer to the careful release protocols and handling/release guidelines required in § 622.10(c)(1), and the handling and resuscitation requirements specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, for additional information.
(b) [Reserved]
2.
(a) Non-boated turtles should be brought close to the boat and provided with time to calm down. Then, it must be determined whether or not the hook can be removed without causing further injury. All externally embedded hooks must be removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury to the turtle. No attempt should be made to remove a hook if it has been swallowed, or if it is determined that removal would result in further injury. If the hook cannot be removed and/or if the animal is entangled, as much line as possible must be removed prior to release, using a line cutter as specified in paragraph A.1. of this Appendix F. If the hook can be removed, it must be removed using a long-handled dehooker as specified in paragraphs A.2. and A.3. of this Appendix F. Without causing further injury, as much gear as possible must be removed from the turtle prior to its release. Refer to the careful release protocols and handling/release guidelines required in § 622.10(c)(1), and the handling and resuscitation requirements specified in § 223.206(d)(1) for additional information.
(b) [Reserved]
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; area closure.
This action closes the Eastern U.S./Canada Area for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the remainder of fishing year 2014, through April 30, 2015. Based on recent data, the common pool fishery has caught 130 percent of its Eastern Georges Bank cod total allowable catch, triggering the regulatory requirement to close the area for the remainder of the fishing year. This action is intended to prevent further overage of the common pool's annual quota of Eastern Georges Bank cod.
This action is effective August 26, 2014, through April 30, 2015.
Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, 978–282–8493.
Federal regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(E) require the Regional Administrator to close the Eastern U.S./Canada Area when any individual total allowable catch (TAC) allocation for the area is projected to be caught. In such cases, the Eastern U.S./Canada Area (including any Special Access Programs (SAPs) that reside in this area) closes to all common pool vessels, i.e. Northeast (NE) multispecies limited access non-sector vessels and NE multispecies open access vessels. The fishing year 2014 (May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015) common pool TAC for Eastern Georges Bank cod is 3.0 mt. Based on the most recent data and information, which include vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, and vessel monitoring system information, we have determined that 130 percent of the fishing year TAC was caught as of August 19, 2014. Because of the low catch limit and the rate at which a common pool vessel can harvest Eastern Georges Bank cod, it was not possible to initiate this action before the point that the fishing year TAC was exceeded.
Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our Web site at:
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The Eastern U.S./Canada Area closure is required by regulation in order to reduce the probability of the common pool fishery exceeding its TAC of Eastern Georges Bank cod, or if exceeded, reduce further overage of the TAC. Any overages of the common pool's TACs would undermine conservation objectives and trigger the implementation of accountability measures that would have negative economic impacts on common pool vessels. The data and information showing that Eastern Georges Bank cod is projected to have exceeded its TAC for the stock only became available recently. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent NMFS from implementing the necessary
Eastern U.S./Canada Area closure in a timely manner, which could undermine management objectives of the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements measures in Framework Adjustment 2 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan, which was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council. The approved management measures include updated skate fishery specifications for the 2014–2015 fishing years and changes to skate reporting requirements. The action is necessary to update the Fishery Management Plan to be consistent with the best available scientific information, and improve management of the skate fisheries. The rule is expected to help conserve skate stocks, while maintaining economic opportunities for the skate fisheries.
This rule is effective September 29, 2014.
Copies of the framework, including the Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) and other supporting documents for the action are available from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. The framework is also accessible via the Internet at:
NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is contained in the Classification section of this rule. Copies of the FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from the Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, and are available via the Internet at:
Tobey Curtis, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281–9273.
The New England Fishery Management Council is responsible for developing management measures for skate fisheries in the northeastern U.S. through the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (Skate FMP). Seven skate species are managed under the Skate FMP: Winter; little; thorny; barndoor; smooth; clearnose; and rosette. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviews the best available information on the status of skate populations and makes recommendations on acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the skate complex (all seven species). This recommendation is then used as the basis for catch limits and other management measures for the skate fisheries.
This final rule approves and implements measures contained in Framework Adjustment 2 to the Skate FMP. The Council developed Framework 2 to update the skate fishery specifications (i.e., annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TAL), and possession limits) for fishing years 2014 and 2015. Framework 2 also includes adjustments to reporting requirements for skate vessels and dealers. A proposed rule to implement the measures contained in Framework 2 published in the
Based upon the recommendations of the Council, the Skate ABC and associated catch limits are being reduced approximately 30 percent from 2013 levels. The catch reduction is largely based on declines in trawl survey biomass for the more abundant little and winter skate species (refer to the EA for more details; see
1. Skate ABC and ACL of 78.218 million lb (35,479 mt);
2. ACT of 58.663 million lb (26,609 mt);
3. TAL of 36.123 million lb (16,385 mt) (the skate wing fishery is allocated 66.5 percent of the TAL (24.022 million lb (10,896 mt)) and the skate bait fishery is allocated 33.5 percent of the TAL (12.101 million lb (5,489 mt)), divided into three seasons according to the regulations at § 648.322);
4. Status quo skate bait possession limit, as defined in § 648.322(c): 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) whole weight per trip for vessels carrying a valid Skate Bait Letter of Authorization; and
5. Status quo skate wing possession limits, as defined in § 648.322(b): 2,600 lb (1,179 kg) wing weight per trip for Season I (May 1 through August 31), and 4,100 lb (1,860 kg) wing weight per trip for Season II (September 1 through April 30) for vessels fishing on a Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, or Scallop Day-at-Sea. The Northeast Multispecies Category-B Day-at-Sea possession limit remains at 220 lb (100 kg) wing weight per trip, and the non-Day-at-Sea incidental possession limit remains at 500 lb (227 kg) wing weight per trip.
NMFS is not implementing any changes to the existing in-season incidental possession limit trigger points (85 percent in the wing fishery, 90 percent in the bait fishery). While these reductions in catch limits are expected to address the current overfishing status for winter skates (not overfished), the Council intends to develop a new skate action during 2014 to address overfishing and rebuild overfished thorny skates.
A long-term goal of the Skate FMP has been to improve species-specific skate catch information. Through this final rule, fishing vessels and dealers will no longer be permitted to report “unclassified skate,” which hinders single-species assessment and management efforts. Skate bait vessels and dealers are now required to report landings by species from among the following options: Winter skate; little skate; little/winter skate (unknown mix of these two species); barndoor skate; smooth skate; thorny skate; clearnose skate; or rosette skate. Skate wing vessels and dealers are now required to report landings by species from among these options: Winter skate; barndoor skate; thorny skate; or clearnose skate. These reporting options have always been available to vessels and dealers, but they have been uncommonly used.
Based upon NMFS port sampling data, over 98 percent of skate wing fishery landings are composed of winter skate, so it is expected that most of the “unclassified” skate wing landings would translate into “winter skate” landings. Similarly, approximately 90 percent of skate bait landings are composed of little skate, with the remainder being largely comprised of juvenile winter skates. Therefore, “unclassified” landings in the bait fishery are expected to translate into “little skate” or “little/winter skate” landings. While in most circumstances it is unlawful to retain, land, or possess barndoor, thorny, and smooth skates, vessels and fish dealers must still report the unauthorized landing of these species when they occur. Outreach, education, and continued monitoring of landings by NMFS will aid fishing vessels and dealers with this transition.
Only a single comment was received on the proposed rule. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of the comment.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a determination that this rule is consistent with the Skate FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This action has been determined to be not significant for the purpose of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), NMFS has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in support of this action. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS' response to those comments, relevant analyses contained in the action and its EA, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action in this rule. A copy of the analyses and the EA are available from the Council (see
Only one comment was received on the proposed rule. For a summary of the comment, and NMFS' response, see the Comments and Responses section above. The comment did not raise any issues or concerns related to the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule more generally, and no changes were made to the rule as a result of the comment.
This rule will impact fishing vessels, including commercial fishing entities. In 2012, there were 2,265 vessels that held an open access skate permit. However, not all of those vessels are active participants in the fishery. If two or more vessels have identical owners, these vessels should be considered to be part of the same firm, because they may have the same owners. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), firms are classified as finfish or shellfish firms based on the activity which they derive the most revenue. Using the $5.5M cutoff for shellfish firms (NAICS 114112) and the $20.5M cutoff for finfish firms (NAICS 114111), there are
This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
During 2012, total revenues from skate landings were valued at approximately $6.6 million. The 2012 data are representative of an average-landings skate year, whereas the 2011 data are representative of a recent high-landings skate year. Compared to the no action alternative, the Preferred Alternative's reduction in the skate TALs (30 percent) could reduce potential annual skate revenues. However, the fishing year 2012 and 2013 skate landings were below the TAL implemented by this action, suggesting that it is unlikely that potential revenue losses would be directly commensurate with the TAL reduction. If skate landings in 2014 and 2015 are comparable to those observed in 2012 and 2013, then the skate fishery may experience no loss of skate revenue, but may actually come closer to fully harvesting the available amount of landings.
The preferred (status quo) skate wing and bait possession limit alternatives were selected because they have a high likelihood of providing a consistent rate of skate landings for the entire fishing year, while likely achieving 100 percent of the respective TALs. Alternatives with lower possession limits (one alternative in each fishery: 1,500 lb (680 kg)/2,400 lb (1,089 kg) in the wing fishery; 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) in the bait fishery) would increase the likelihood of not achieving the proposed TAL by the end of the year, resulting in losses of potential skate revenues. A single alternative for a higher skate wing possession limit (5,000 lb (2,268 kg)) was not preferred because it was projected to reach the in-season incidental possession limit trigger point (85 percent of the TAL) early in the fishing year, effectively closing the directed skate wing fishery for part of the year, which would result in distributional shifts of benefits from late-season harvesters to summer harvesters.
Changes to skate vessel and dealer reporting requirements are administrative measures, and the preferred and no action alternatives have no associated economic impacts. Vessels and dealers are already required to report the skates that they catch/purchase.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and the guide, i.e., permit holder letter, will be sent to all holders of permits for the skate fishery. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request, and posted on the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's Web site at
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2014 initial total allowable catch (ITAC) of Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 1, 2014, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2014. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., September 12, 2014.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by 2013–0152, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228.
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.
NMFS closed directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on May 1, 2014 (79 FR 22885, April 25, 2014).
NMFS has determined that as of August 22, 2014, approximately 700 metric tons of Greenland turbot ITAC remains in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2014 ITAC of Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Greenland turbot by vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Greenland turbot by vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet and processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 22, 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.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Greenland turbot by vessels in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until September 12, 2014.
This action is required by § 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from a region in Argentina located north of Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, referred to as Northern Argentina. Based on the evidence in a recent risk assessment, we believe that fresh (chilled or frozen) beef can be safely imported from Northern Argentina provided certain conditions are met. This proposal would provide for the importation of beef from Northern Argentina into the United States while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 28, 2014.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–3313.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations contains criteria for recognition by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of foreign regions as free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.11 restricts the importation of ruminants and swine and their meat and certain other products from regions that are declared free of rinderpest and FMD but that nonetheless present a disease risk because of the regions' proximity to or trading relationships with regions affected by rinderpest or FMD. Regions APHIS has declared free of FMD and/or rinderpest, and regions declared free of FMD and rinderpest that are subject to the restrictions in § 94.11, are listed on the APHIS Web site at
APHIS considers rinderpest or FMD to exist in all regions of the world not listed as free of those diseases on the Web site. On June 26, 1997, we published in the
With few exceptions, the regulations prohibit the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine that originates in or transits a region where FMD is considered to exist. One such exception is beef and ovine meat
• The meat is beef or ovine meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay.
• FMD has not been diagnosed in Uruguay within the previous 12 months.
• The meat comes from bovines or sheep that originated from premises where FMD had not been present during the lifetime of any bovines or sheep slaughtered for the export of beef and ovine meat to the United States.
• The meat comes from bovines or sheep that were moved directly from the premises of origin to the slaughtering
• The meat comes from bovines or sheep that received ante-mortem and post-mortem veterinary inspections, paying particular attention to the head and feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with no evidence found of vesicular disease.
• The meat consists only of bovine or ovine parts that are, by standard practice, part of the animal's carcass that is placed in a chiller for maturation after slaughter. The bovine and ovine parts that may not be imported include all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, and internal organs.
• All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and lymphoid tissue have been removed from the meat.
• The meat has not been in contact with meat from regions other than those listed in the regulations as free of rinderpest and FMD.
• The meat comes from carcasses that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 hours after slaughter and that reached a pH of below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end of the maturation period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the middle of both
• An authorized veterinary official of the Government of Uruguay certifies on the foreign meat inspection certificate that the above conditions have been met.
• The establishment in which the bovines and sheep are slaughtered allows periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS representative.
In response to a request from the Government of Argentina that we reconsider our decision to prohibit the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef into the United States from Northern Argentina in light of improvements Argentina has made in its FMD detection and eradication procedures, we conducted a risk analysis of that region, which can be viewed on the Internet on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room.
In this proposed rule, we are also giving notice that we would add Argentina to the list of regions that we recognize as free of rinderpest, which can be viewed at
Our proposed addition of the exporting region of Northern Argentina to the regulations in § 94.29 necessitates a few minor editorial changes to § 94.1, where, currently, reference is made to the importation of fresh beef and ovine meat from Uruguay under § 94.29.
Drawing on data submitted by the Government of Argentina and observations from our site visits to the region under consideration, we have conducted a risk analysis of the animal health status of that region relative to FMD. Our risk analysis was conducted according to the eight factors identified in § 92.2, “Application for recognition of the animal health status of a region”: The scope of the evaluation being requested, veterinary control and oversight, disease history and vaccination practices, livestock demographics and traceability, epidemiological separation from potential sources of infection, surveillance, diagnostic laboratory capabilities, and emergency preparedness and response.
A summary evaluation of each factor is discussed below. Based on our analysis of these factors, we have determined that fresh (chilled or frozen) beef can be safely imported into the United States from Northern Argentina.
We conducted our risk analysis in response to an official request from Argentina that APHIS allow the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef into the United States from a region in Argentina located north of Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, referred to as Northern Argentina. Given the history of FMD in Argentina and the fact that Argentina vaccinates its cattle population in most Provinces against FMD, APHIS conducted this risk analysis to evaluate the potential for FMD introduction and establishment through importation of beef from Northern Argentina. Data and background information were obtained from Argentine animal health officials. Much of the supporting information for this analysis consists of records obtained from SENASA. In addition, APHIS conducted five site visits to Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2013 to verify and complement the information provided by Argentina.
At the time of the 2001 outbreak detailed above, epidemiological investigations revealed areas in SENASA's veterinary controls and oversight that were in need of improvement. As a result, SENASA was reorganized. The new structure was intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing system. Issues addressed included centralization of command and control of animal health programs, enhancements in the internal monitoring and
APHIS reviewed Argentina's FMD control and eradication program during our site visits in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2013, and concluded that the program is effective at the local and national levels. We concluded that SENASA could detect disease quickly, limit its spread, and report it promptly.
APHIS considers that SENASA has sufficient legal authority to carry out official control, eradication, and quarantine activities. SENASA has a system of official veterinarians and support staff in place for carrying out field programs and for import controls. Field activities are coordinated through the national animal health office. Review of veterinary infrastructure with SENASA officials confirmed the presence of a system adequate for rapid detection and reporting of FMD and for carrying out surveillance and eradication programs. Field offices appeared to be appropriately staffed for the regions covered. The technical infrastructure is adequate, and advanced technologies are utilized in conducting several animal health programs, including the FMD program. Import controls are sufficient to protect international borders at principal crossing points, and sufficient controls exist to prevent the introduction of international waste into the country. Field personnel appeared to be adequately trained in FMD detection and control or to have had experience dealing with epidemiological investigations during FMD outbreaks. It is expected that they would suspect FMD if they were to see clinical signs compatible with the disease. With regard to indemnity procedures, we concluded that adequate funds are available to compensate owners for depopulated animals and that indemnity provisions can be extended to all animals potentially exposed to FMD, not only those confirmed as infected. Generally, we were favorably impressed with the census information, coverage of premises in the export region, the recordkeeping for individual premises, the control of vaccination, and the movement controls documented at the local level.
Outbreaks of FMD occurred in Northern Argentina in 2000/2001, with isolated instances occurring in 2003 and 2006. In the course of evaluating the potential disease risk posed by importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef into the United States from the export region, we did not detect any evidence to suggest that active outbreaks of FMD exist in the proposed exporting region.
Vaccination of cattle is mandatory in the proposed export region (except for the Patagonia North A region and the summer pastures (zona veranadas) of Calingasta Valley in the Province of San Juan). Other susceptible species are vaccinated only in strategic areas (e.g., the borders with Paraguay and Bolivia due to the disease status of those countries) and emergency situations. Local SENASA veterinarians certify, control, and audit the vaccination campaigns. Further, local, regional, and central SENASA services are responsible for setting vaccination schedules, which are determined using a regionalization method in order to account for differing ecological features, production types, and animal movement and flow. Vaccination coverage was reported to range between 98.9 percent and 100 percent in the proposed export region, with vaccination rates at 100 percent for the 2012 campaign that APHIS reviewed.
The vaccine used is an inactivated, trivalent, oil-based vaccine. All FMD vaccines produced or used in Argentina must be tested for quality and safety by the official SENASA laboratory. Quality control tests of each batch of the vaccine are conducted in the diagnostic laboratory in Buenos Aires and strictly follow international standards as set forth by the OIE. All vials are identified with technical and manufacturer brand labels, a sequential number, and an official stamp stating the series and the expiration date. Trucks used for transportation of the vaccine are equipped with temperature sensors to ensure a cold chain during transportation. A cold chain ensures that the vaccine is kept at the temperature specified by its manufacturer as necessary to maintain its viability and efficacy on a continuous basis throughout the shipping process.
We concluded that Argentina conducts its FMD vaccine production programs appropriately and in accordance with international standards. There is a system of controls to ensure compliance with vaccination calendars through matching vaccination records to movement permits and census data, and through field inspections. There is also a system in place for levying fines for noncompliance.
Cattle production is the primary livestock production system in Argentina. The domestic livestock population consists of approximately 57 million head of cattle, 13 million sheep, 2.3 million goats, and 2.3 million pigs. Of these, approximately 98 percent of the cattle population and premises are located within the proposed export area.
We did not identify significant risk pathways that would cause us to consider commercial operations in the proposed export region as a likely source for introducing FMD into the United States. The larger commercial operations are likely to be the source of beef exports from the export region. Based on its review of the information, APHIS considers the beef industry in the export region to be well-organized and committed to the production of quality product and to preventing FMD outbreaks.
Argentina has an efficient and effective traceability system, which includes a compulsory national individual identification system for cattle being exported to different countries, including the European Union (EU). Individual identification is unique and permanent. Since the process by which meat is certified for export to the EU is identical to the process we are proposing here, Argentinean inspectors have experience and training in the types of procedures that would be necessary for export to the United States. The use of this national identification system enhances Argentina's ability to certify the origin of animals entering the export channels.
We note that the auction system in the country is well organized and tightly controlled by the official veterinary service. However, there is no evidence to suggest that major movements of animals into export channels occur through the auction system. Instead, bovines destined for export to the EU are shipped directly from the farm to the exporting slaughter facility.
Adequate controls and inspection measures exist at slaughter facilities in Argentina. Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections are carried out satisfactorily. APHIS evaluated pH controls, maturation, and deboning procedures at three plants in the proposed export zone that export to the EU and elsewhere. Every carcass destined for the EU is tested to ensure that the pH is not greater than 5.9, which is the EU requirement. If greater, the carcass is diverted to local consumption. APHIS examined maturation records and verified actual
The biosecurity measures applied at the facilities APHIS visited were adequate, and there is a high level of awareness of and compliance with these measures. In addition, processing for slaughter facilities are under adequate official control and inspection.
We concluded that Argentina has adequate control of inspection activities in slaughter facilities and can certify compliance with our import requirements. A comparable system for control of commercial shipments of fresh and frozen beef under similar conditions to the EU also exists and is considered adequate to control the specific conditions for exporting the commodity under consideration.
Northern Argentina is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and shares land borders with Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and the Province of Río Negro, Argentina. The Province of Río Negro, Argentina, is located in “Patagonia North B,” which is an FMD surveillance area situated to the south of Northern Argentina. The most recent outbreak of FMD in Patagonia North B occurred in 1994. APHIS does not consider the countries of South America to be FMD-free, with the exception of Chile. Outbreaks have occurred in Uruguay and Paraguay, both countries that had been classified by the OIE as “free without vaccination” or “free with vaccination” prior to the outbreaks. FMD has not been eradicated from Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, or Peru.
There is a history of introduction of disease into Argentina from neighboring countries. According to Argentinean officials, illegal movement of animals from neighboring countries as well as mechanical transmission of the virus resulted in the introduction of the disease into Argentina prior to the 2001 outbreak discussed previously. APHIS concluded that as long as FMD is endemic in the overall region in South America, there is a risk of reintroduction from adjacent areas into the proposed exporting region.
Domestic movement controls within Argentina are stringent. SENASA requires that all cattle owners identify their animals with a unique animal identification number, which is kept with the cattle via ear tags. Sheep are not required to be individually identified; however, in the event the farm is approved for export to the EU, premises identification is required, either by ear tag, which includes the unique identification number of the farm, or ear notch. There is a system of permits in place to control animal movement, which works well at the local level. Movement controls are linked to vaccination records, and vaccination coverage in the export region evaluated by APHIS is high, as noted above.
There is good cooperation between Argentine Federal agencies and their international counterparts at land border crossings. Argentina is separated from most of Chile by the Andes Mountains and operates a joint surveillance program for monitoring animal movements across the border with the Chilean government. The OIE recognizes Chile as FMD-free without vaccination and, as a result, SENASA does not consider the Chilean border a high-risk region. The Brazilian border is also considered by SENASA to be a low-risk region, subject to a joint FMD surveillance program with the Brazilian government.
SENASA has identified the Paraguayan and Bolivian borders as the most vulnerable for the potential introduction of FMD into Argentina. As a result, those areas have received enhanced support from SENASA in the form of increased surveillance and border control activities. Agreements are also in place between SENASA and its counterparts in Paraguay and Bolivia for such coordinated border control activities as vaccinations, surveillance, animal census, education, and animal identification.
Movement controls at international land checkpoints as well as movement control measures and biosecurity at airports and seaports appear to be adequate.
During site visits, APHIS attempts to target the riskiest border crossings (and other areas) as an example of “maximized risk scenario,” in order to address similar, but theoretically lower, risks in the remainder of the export region. APHIS assumes that if the riskiest pathways are sufficiently mitigated, the overall spectrum of risk issues should be acceptable. Using this assumption and visiting the areas of highest risk in the proposed export region, APHIS concluded that movement control measures for live animals are relatively robust at both domestic and international checkpoints.
The animal health service in Argentina has a surveillance system that covers all national territory. All official service field staff, community participants, and private sector veterinarians are trained and required to look for signs of vesicular diseases (e.g., excessive salivation, difficulty walking, etc.). If FMD is suspected, it must be immediately reported to the local unit or to the veterinary authority that would notify the local unit. Cattle are inspected every 6 months by vaccinators and official veterinarians, when the bovines are gathered in corrals for vaccination. Other susceptible species are not vaccinated except for the area located 25 kilometers south of the Argentina/Bolivia and Argentina/Paraguay border, where all susceptible species are vaccinated twice a year. Animals are individually inspected for signs of vesicular disease by personnel from the official service before slaughtering. Other body parts, including the tongue and feet, are examined during post-mortem inspection. All animals coming into fairs, auctions, or exhibitions are clinically inspected by the official veterinarians. The clinical inspection of animals in transit is carried out at checkpoints and border control points by official personnel. The conditions under which animals move are based on the animal health status of the Province of origin or the country sharing borders with the export region.
Argentina has a two-phase surveillance system that effectively uses active and passive surveillance. Phase I relies on active surveillance to document freedom from disease. Active surveillance is carried out by means of targeted sero-epidemiological surveys in specific “high-risk” areas within the zone that SENASA considers FMD-free. The surveys aim to prove that the zone remains free of viral activity. Serological testing is also conducted whenever there is suspicion of the disease. Phase II begins once freedom from infection has been established. The main goals in this phase are to prevent the reintroduction of the disease, maintain good sanitary conditions, and provide technical grounds to demonstrate the continual absence of disease and viral activity in the zone. Passive surveillance is the primary type employed in Phase II, although active surveillance is also used. Passive surveillance activities include observations made during: (1) Animal movement control activities and trade of animal products, (2) farm inspections, (3) slaughterhouse inspection, and (4) inspections during livestock fairs. Data on the above activities are collected annually. Passive surveillance takes advantage of the
Observations made during recent site visits to Argentina led APHIS to conclude that the Argentine authorities were particularly effective in their FMD educational campaigns and that the country's FMD eradication strategy and surveillance practices have been fully communicated, understood, and embraced by all animal health officials in the country. This was made evident by the high degree of consistency in implementation and execution of the program at every local veterinary unit visited. In addition, the serological surveillance plan, updated in 2013, appears well designed and executed.
SENASA has one laboratory, located in Buenos Aires, under its direct supervision that performs diagnostic tests for FMD and other vesicular diseases. Based on laboratory and site visits conducted in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2013, we concluded that Argentina has the diagnostic capability to adequately test samples for the presence of the FMD virus. The laboratory in Buenos Aires has adequate quality control activities; adequate laboratory equipment, which is routinely monitored and calibrated; sufficient staff; and an effective and efficient recordkeeping system for storage and retrieval of data. The tests used to investigate evidence of viral activity are consistent with OIE guidelines. The staff members appear to be well-trained and motivated. Samples were turned around in a timely manner.
Argentina's efficient and effective traceability system is an important component of its emergency response capacity. As noted above, Argentina uses a mandatory national identification system, which includes individual animal identification numbers, for cattle that are destined for export. In addition, Argentina uses a mandatory identification system to track the entire cattle population in the country by lot. That system proved to be effective during the 2003 and 2006 FMD outbreaks in the traceback of all contacts.
Argentina relies heavily on community notification of FMD outbreaks, as that tends to be the most efficient way to locate disease. Once notification occurs, the Federal contingency plan for FMD is extensive and thorough, and a significant degree of necessary autonomy is built in at the Provincial level.
APHIS concluded that adequate legal authority, funding, personnel, and resources exist at both the Provincial and Federal levels to carry out emergency response measures. The emergency response is both rapid and effective, as shown following the FMD outbreaks in Northern Argentina in 2003 and 2006.
The above findings are detailed in the risk analysis document summarized above. The risk analysis explains the factors that have led us to conclude that fresh (chilled or frozen) beef may be safely imported from Northern Argentina under the conditions enumerated above. It also establishes that Argentina has adequate veterinary infrastructures in place to prevent, control, report, and manage FMD and outbreaks. Therefore, we are proposing to amend § 94.29 to allow the importation of fresh beef from Northern Argentina under the conditions described above.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
Our analysis examines potential economic impacts of a proposed rule that would allow fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Northern Argentina to be imported into the United States provided certain conditions are met. Economic effects of the rule for both U.S. producers and consumers are expected to be very small. Producers' welfare would be negatively affected, but not significantly. Gains for consumers would outweigh producer losses, resulting in a net benefit to the U.S. economy.
The United States is the largest beef producer in the world and yet still imports a significant quantity. U.S. beef import volumes from 1999 to 2013 averaged 0.9 million metric tons (MT) or roughly 11 percent of U.S. production. Most of the beef imported by the United States is from grass-fed cattle and is processed with trimmings from U.S. grain-fed cattle to make ground beef. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are the main foreign suppliers of beef to the United States.
Effects of the proposed rule are estimated using a partial equilibrium model of the U.S. agricultural sector. Economic impacts are estimated based on intra-sectoral linkages among the grain, livestock, and livestock product sectors. Annual imports of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Argentina are expected to range between 16,000 and 24,000 MT, with volumes averaging 20,000 MT. Quantity, price and welfare changes are estimated for these three import scenarios. The results are presented as average annual effects for the 5-year period 2014–2018.
The model indicates less than 10 percent of the beef imported from Argentina would displace beef that would otherwise be imported from other countries, in particular, from Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Uruguay. If the United States were to import 20,000 MT of beef from Argentina, total U.S. beef imports would increase by 1.35 percent. Due to the supply increase, the wholesale price of beef, the retail price of beef, and the price of cattle (steers) are estimated to decline by 0.22, 0.08, and 0.24 percent, respectively. U.S. beef production would decline by 0.01 percent while U.S. beef consumption and exports would increase by 0.12 and 0.22 percent, respectively. The 16,000 MT and 24,000 MT scenarios show similar quantity and price effects.
The fall in beef prices and the resulting decline in U.S. beef production would translate into reduced returns to capital and management in the livestock and beef sectors. Under the 20,000 MT import scenario, producers would experience a decline in surplus of $7.63 million or 0.42 percent, while
The 16,000 MT and 24,000 MT scenarios show similar welfare impacts, with net benefits increasing broadly in proportion to the quantity of beef imported. The largest impact would be for the beef sector, but consumers of pork would also benefit neglibly. While most of the establishments that would be affected by this rule are small entities, based on the results of this analysis, APHIS does not expect the impacts to be significant. APHIS welcomes information that the public may provide regarding potential economic effects of the proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Northern Argentina under the conditions described in this proposed rule, we have prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS' animal import regulations in §§ 94.1 and 94.29 will place certain restrictions on the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Northern Argentina into the United States. Under these regulations, APHIS must collect information, prepared by an authorized certified official of the Government of Argentina, certifying that specific conditions for importation have been met.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond (such as 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).
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781–7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from a region in Argentina located north of Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, referred to as Northern Argentina, and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine meat from Uruguay may be exported to the United States under the following conditions:
(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat from animals that have been born, raised, and slaughtered in the exporting region of Argentina or in Uruguay.
(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not been diagnosed in the exporting region of Argentina or in Uruguay within the previous 12 months.
(c) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that originated from premises where foot-and-mouth disease has not been present during the lifetime of any bovines and sheep slaughtered for the export of beef and ovine meat to the United States.
(d) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that were moved directly from the premises of origin to the slaughtering establishment without any contact with other animals.
(e) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that received ante-mortem and post-mortem veterinary inspections, paying particular attention to the head and feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with no evidence found of vesicular disease.
(f) The meat consists only of bovine parts or ovine parts that are, by standard practice, part of the animal's carcass that is placed in a chiller for maturation after slaughter. The bovine and ovine parts that may not be imported include all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, and internal organs.
(g) All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and lymphoid tissue have been removed from the meat.
(h) The meat has not been in contact with meat from regions other than those listed in § 94.1(a).
(i) The meat came from bovine carcasses that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 hours after slaughter and that reached a pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end of the maturation period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the middle of both
(j) An authorized veterinary official of the government of the exporting region certifies on the foreign meat inspection certificate that the above conditions have been met.
(k) The establishment in which the bovines and sheep are slaughtered allows periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS representative.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes this request for public comment concerning the proposed parental consent method submitted by AgeCheq Inc. (“AgeCheq”) under the Voluntary Commission Approval Processes provision of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule.
Written comments must be received on or before September 30, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Miry Kim, (202) 326–3622, Attorney, Kandi Parsons, Attorney, (202) 326–2369, or Peder Magee, Attorney, (202) 326–3538, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.
On October 20, 1999, the Commission issued its final Rule
Pursuant to § 312.12(a) of the Rule, AgeCheq has submitted a proposed parental consent method to the Commission for approval. The full text of its application is available on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission is seeking comment on the proposed parental consent method, and is particularly interested in receiving comment on the questions that follow. These questions are designed to assist the Commission's consideration of the petition and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. Responses to these questions should cite the number of the question being answered. For all comments submitted, please provide any relevant data, statistics, or any other evidence, upon which those comments are based.
1. Is this method, both with respect to the process for obtaining consent for an initial operator and any subsequent operators, already covered by existing methods enumerated in § 312.5(b)(1) of the Rule?
2. If this is a new method, provide comments on whether the proposed parental consent method, both with respect to an initial operator and any subsequent operators, meets the requirements for parental consent laid out in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). Specifically, the Commission is looking for comments on whether the proposed parental consent method is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is the child's parent.
3. Does this proposed method pose a risk to consumers' personal information? If so, is that risk outweighed by the benefit to consumers and businesses of using this method?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 30, 2014. Write “AgeCheq Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P–145410” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, such as Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, including medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “AgeCheq Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P–145410” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC–5610 (Annex K), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex K), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
By direction of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD). This SIP revision includes amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control, and meets the requirement to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards for the following categories: miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Upon review of the submittal, EPA found that the average monomer volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits were referenced but not included in the regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. ACHD has committed to revising the regulation and submitting the table of VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials to EPA in order to address specific RACT requirements for Allegheny County. EPA is, therefore, proposing conditional approval of the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by email at
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment. EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).
CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and local air pollution control authorities information to assist them in determining RACT for VOC from various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process.
In 1977 and 1978, EPA published CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. After reviewing the 1977/1978 CTGs for these industries, conducting a review of currently existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches for these industries, and taking into account any information that has become available since then, EPA developed new CTGs entitled
On November 15, 2013, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted to EPA on behalf of ACHD a SIP revision concerning the adoption of the EPA CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials in Allegheny County. Allegheny County is adopting EPA's CTG standards for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. These regulations are contained in the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control sections 2105.83, 2105.84, 2105.85, and 2105.86 in order to: (1) Establish applicability for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; (2) establish exemptions; (3) establish record-keeping and work practice requirements; and (4) establish emission limitations. Upon review of the November 15, 2013 submittal, EPA found that a table of average monomer VOC content limit for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials was referenced, however, the table was
EPA is proposing conditional approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted on November 15, 2013, which consists of amendments to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control for adopting RACT for sources covered by EPA's CTG standards for the following categories: Miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, this conditional approval is based upon a letter from PADEP on behalf of ACHD dated July 16, 2014 committing to submit to EPA, no later than twelve months from EPA's final conditional approval of ACHD's adoption of CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, an additional SIP revision to address the erroneous deficiency in the current regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. The SIP revision, to be submitted by PADEP on behalf of ACHD, will include a table of monomer VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Once EPA has determined that ACHD has satisfied this condition, EPA shall remove the conditional nature of its approval and Allegheny County's adoption of CTGs for miscellaneous metal and/or plastic parts surface coating processes, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials will, at that time, receive a full approval status. Should ACHD fail to meet the condition specified above, the final conditional approval of Allegheny County's CTGs for the above listed source categories will convert to a disapproval. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of availability and public comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted its responses to state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2012 primary annual fine particle (PM
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014. Please
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–HQ–2012–0918, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Beth Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 919–541–5432, email at
On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual PM
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d), 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). Following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states and tribes of any intended modification to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
On or about August 19, 2014, the EPA notified states and tribes of its intended area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments from interested parties other than states and tribes regarding the EPA's recent responses to the state and tribal designation recommendations for the 2012 primary annual PM
Please refer to the
The EPA believes that the boundaries for each nonattainment area should be evaluated and determined on a case-by-case basis considering the specific facts and circumstances unique to the area. CAA section 107(d) requires that the EPA designate as nonattainment not only any area that is violating the 2012 primary annual PM
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Make sure to provide your input by the comment period deadline identified in this notice.
To date, the EPA has identified 14 areas that do not meet the 2012 primary annual PM
1.
2.
• Identify the docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—the agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations part or section number.
• 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.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the
The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The State of Oklahoma has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Oklahoma. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by September 29, 2014.
Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of Oklahoma during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone number (214) 665–8533; or Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101–1677, (405) 702–7180. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the
Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 103 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP) to close year-round the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) to directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize bycatch and prevent overfishing of Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC). This action would promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.
Submit comments on or before September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0141, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the BSAI FMP, Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP, the Environmental Assessment (EA), and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from
Sarah Ellgen, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the BSAI groundfish fisheries under the FMP for groundfish in the BSAI management area (BSAI FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP
The Council submitted Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and a notice of availability was published in the
The Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC) stock is managed as a distinct stock and occurs around the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George in the Bering Sea. The PIBKC stock is currently overfished and under a rebuilding plan (69 FR 17651, April 5, 2004). NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) have implemented a number of increasingly conservative management measures to limit potentially adverse fishery effects on PIBKC.
In 1999, as part of the joint management of the crab stocks under the Crab FMP, the ADF&G closed the directed PIBKC fishery due to the declining trend in PIBKC abundance. ADF&G also closed the directed Pribilof Islands red king crab fishery to minimize the bycatch of PIBKC in that fishery. Based on NMFS annual trawl survey data, ADF&G continues to annually close specific State statistical areas where PIBKC are known to occur during the Bristol Bay red king crab, snow crab, and Tanner crab fisheries to minimize PIBKC bycatch in those crab fisheries.
NMFS closed the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) to groundfish trawl gear to protect blue king crab under Amendment 21a to the BSAI FMP (60 FR 4110, January 20, 1995). The PIHCZ was established based on the distribution of the blue king crab recorded in the NMFS annual trawl surveys and on observer data (see proposed Figure 10 to 50 CFR part 679).
NMFS classified the PIBKC stock as a prohibited species in Table 2b to 50 CFR part 679. The BSAI FMP and implementing regulations at § 679.21 require that the incidental catch of prohibited species be avoided while fishing for groundfish. Regulations at § 679.7(a)(12) prohibit retaining or possessing prohibited species unless permitted to do so under the Prohibited Species Donation program as provided by § 679.26 of this part, or as authorized by other applicable law. Pursuant to these regulations, directed groundfish fisheries must immediately return PIBKC bycatch to the sea with a minimum of injury.
Due to chronic low abundance, this stock remains overfished despite these measures to minimize catch of blue king crab. The cause of the continued low PIBKC stock abundance and failure to recover is not well understood. Information included in recent Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports suggest that environmental conditions such as changing ocean currents, changing water temperatures, and changing spatial distributions among king crab stocks may contribute to the failure of this stock to recover (see 2010, 2011, 2012 SAFE reports for the PIBKC). While there are no apparent physical barriers to adult dispersal, crab larval dispersal may be affected by local oceanography, which may in turn affect recruitment of the PIBKC stock (see Table 4–4 of the EA). Environmental conditions may also play a role in female crab reproduction and growth; however this relationship is poorly understood (Section 4.5.2 of the EA).
The continuing low abundance of PIBKC underscores the need to implement additional measures to minimize PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable. The Council considered additional conservation and management measures to further minimize bycatch and prevent overfishing with the goal to rebuild PIBKC. The Council recommended Amendment 103 to address the remaining significant source of PIBKC mortality by prohibiting Pacific cod directed fishing with pot gear in the PIHCZ. The Pacific cod pot fishery occurs within the PIHCZ and had the highest observed bycatch rates of PIBKC across all gear types from 2005 to 2011 (see Section 4.5.4 of the EA). This action is consistent with the PIBKC rebuilding plan, but reduces PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fishery to address the potential for PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fishery to exceed the annual PIBKC overfishing limit.
The Council recommended closing the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear based on (1) the high rate of PIBKC bycatch in the PIHCZ relative to other areas outside of the PIHCZ, (2) the high concentration of PIBKC in the PIHCZ, (3) the occurrence of known PIBKC habitat within the PIHCZ, (4) the high rate of PIBKC bycatch in the Pacific cod pot fishery relative to other groundfish fisheries, and (5) the limited impact the Pacific cod pot gear closure in the PIHCZ would have on the Pacific cod pot fishery relative to other groundfish fisheries closures. This proposed action ensures that the reduction of bycatch is focused on the fishery that is most likely to achieve the bycatch reduction with the least economic impacts overall for the groundfish fisheries.
In recommending this proposed action, the Council considered a number of management measures designed to reduce PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fisheries. The Council considered expanding the year-round PIHCZ closure to apply not only to vessels using trawl gear, but also to groundfish fisheries that have contributed to a designated percentage threshold of PIBKC bycatch from 2003 to 2010. The Council also considered implementing groundfish closure areas that would mirror the current ADF&G crab closure areas or that would cover the entire distribution of the PIBKC stock. Such closures would apply to groundfish fisheries that have contributed to greater than a designated percentage threshold of PIBKC bycatch. Finally, the Council considered establishing PIBKC prohibited species catch (PSC) limits. All PIBKC bycatch in all groundfish fisheries would accrue toward the PIBKC PSC limit. Once reached, the PIBKC PSC limit would trigger fishery closures that would apply only to those groundfish fisheries that had contributed to a greater than designated threshold of PIBKC bycatch (triggered closures) (see Section 2 of the EA).
The Council evaluated the alternatives based on the best scientific information available, including survey data on location and concentration of PIBKC, historical distribution of PIBKC, environmental conditions and biology of the PIBKC stock, observed PIBKC bycatch rates in all the groundfish fisheries, information on key habitat components for the PIBKC stock, the potential displacement of fishing effort from the alternative closure areas to other fishing grounds, and the economic impact of PIBKC bycatch reductions and closure areas on fishing communities.
The Council noted that the best scientific information on PIBKC
This action would prevent the BSAI groundfish fisheries from exceeding the overfishing level established for the PIBKC stock. Although the PIBKC bycatch in all groundfish fisheries has been below the overfishing level, the Council acknowledged that recent trends in crab bycatch suggest that groundfish fisheries occurring near the Pribilof Islands have the potential to exceed the overfishing level and acceptable biological catch for this stock (see Section 1.1 of the EA). Prohibiting Pacific cod pot fishing in the habitat conservation zone would remove a significant source of crab bycatch mortality and prevent exceeding the PIBKC overfishing level.
This proposed action would minimize PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable, consistent with National Standard 9. Prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ would prevent PIBKC bycatch in an area of known PIBKC habitat. In recommending the proposed action, the Council noted that Pacific cod catches by vessels using pot gear that occur within the PIHCZ could be effectively harvested outside of the boundary of the PIHCZ; thus, the overall catch of Pacific cod would not be reduced. In addition, in more recent years, Pacific cod pot sector harvests within the PIHCZ have declined considerably to approximately 125 tons with a value of about $200,000, which represents less than one percent of Pacific cod pot fleet total revenue in 2010 (see Sections 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2 of the RIR). According to the RIR, prohibiting fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ is practicable for the Pacific cod pot sector because this measure is not expected to result in increased operational costs or reduced harvest for this sector.
As noted above, the Council evaluated a number of additional alternatives that would further reduce PIBKC bycatch in other groundfish fisheries. The Council did not recommend imposing prohibitions on directed groundfish fishing within the PIHCZ beyond the directed fishing for groundfish using trawl gear and directed fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear. Additional prohibitions were not projected to result in PIBKC bycatch savings, but would likely have serious adverse economic impacts on fishing communities, as the groundfish fisheries attempt to avoid PIBKC bycatch through foregone groundfish catch or increased operating costs.
For example, prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line gear would have closed the PIHCZ to the groundfish sector having the second highest PIBKC bycatch rate in this area. The observed PIBKC bycatch in the PIHCZ taken by the Pacific cod hook-and-line sector was 347 crabs from 2005 to 2011, amounting to 0.2 percent of the PIBKC stock abundance (see Section 4.5.5.1 of the EA, Table 4–12). However, based on the retrospective analysis, extending the PIHCZ closure to this sector could result in foregone groundfish catch, increased operating costs, and potentially serious negative economic impacts. The Pacific cod hook-and-line sector annually harvests 1,500 tons with a value of $2 million, or about 1.7 percent of this sector's total revenue, within the PIHCZ. In contrast to the Pacific cod pot sector's estimated pattern of redeployment outside of the PIHCZ, the retrospective analysis in the RIR indicates that the Pacific cod hook-and-line fleet will experience increased operational costs because this sector may need to make up foregone catch by altering fishing patterns in widely dispersed areas outside the PIHCZ that have a history of smaller catches (see Sections 4.5.5.1 of the EA and 1.4.2 of the RIR). In addition, the Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery is managed almost entirely under a voluntary cooperative management structure and can respond to PIBKC bycatch through cooperative management measures in order to avoid bycatch (see Section 4.5.5.1 of the EA).
Similarly, the Council did not extend the closure to non-Pacific cod hook-and-line and pot fisheries within the PIHCZ because those sectors only had an average PIBKC bycatch rate of 0.0176 per metric ton of groundfish from 2005 to 2011 (see Section 4.5.5.1 of the EA). Based on the much lower observed PIBKC bycatch rate, the bycatch savings from extending the closure in the PIHCZ to those fisheries would likely be negligible and did not outweigh the costs that would be imposed on these fisheries.
Although additional closures or extended closure configurations may further reduce PIBKC bycatch in the groundfish fisheries, as contemplated by Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6, the Council noted numerous stock distribution and observer coverage issues with respect to these alternatives. Area closures outside the PIHCZ and area closures triggered by fishery-wide PIBKC PSC limits would not be viable at this time because of the difficulty in establishing the PIBKC stock boundary, the current limitations in distinguishing and accounting for bycatch of PIBKC from bycatch of St. Matthew Island blue king crab in the groundfish fisheries, and the resulting limitations in the methodology for estimated mortality of PIBKC relative to stock distribution.
For example, the PIBKC stock is located in Federal reporting area 513. However, portions of this stock are also located in Federal reporting areas 521 and 524, areas that are occupied primarily by the St. Matthew Island blue king crab stock. Because the catch accounting system (CAS) is designed to estimate catch across the entire Bering Sea in terms of catch per species, rather than catch per stock, the CAS does not have the resolution to distinguish between crab mortality of St. Matthew and Pribilof Islands blue king crab stocks in these areas. Further, the Council ultimately did not consider trigger cap closures (Alternatives 2c, 5, and 6) viable alternatives due to uncertainty in appropriate definition of the stock area and the resulting current limitations in the methodology for estimating mortality of PIBKC relative to the stock distribution (see Section 4.2.2 of the EA). The potential costs of the various alternatives are shown as tonnage and gross revenue at risk in Tables 1–6 to 1–15 of the RIR. Because of the added administrative costs associated with these closures and because NMFS would be unable to effectively manage these PIBKC bycatch reduction measures at this time, the Council and NMFS believe these alternatives would not be practicable.
The Council considered but did not ultimately choose an option available under any of the alternatives to apply increased observer coverage. Observer coverage requirements were modified in 2013 under the restructured Observer Program (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012), which now requires full observer coverage on catcher/processors, some of which were under 30 percent coverage
NMFS proposes to revise § 679.22(a)(6) to prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in the PIHCZ. The existing prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the PIHCZ would be retained. In addition, Figure 10 to part 679 would be revised by changing the name from “Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Area in the Bering Sea” to read “Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone in the Bering Sea” to be consistent with the definition of the PIHCZ at § 679.2. The map for Figure 10 would be reformatted for greater accuracy and improved appearance. These format changes are non-substantive. See proposed Figure 10 to part 679.
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble and are not repeated here. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $ 5.0 million to $5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 million to $7.5 million. The new size standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this action.
The entities directly regulated by this proposed action are the owners and operators of vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in the PIHCZ. Earnings from all Alaska fisheries for 2010, the most recent year of complete earnings data, were matched with the vessels that participated in the BSAI groundfish fisheries for that year. Based on the known affiliations and joint ownership of the vessels, a total of 114 vessels caught, or caught and processed, less than $20.5 million ex-vessel value or product value of groundfish and other species in the BSAI. These 114 vessels are considered small entities because they all have annual ex-vessel revenues less than the $20.5 million standard for small finifish fishing vessels under the RFA. Of these 114 vessels, 34 directed fish for Pacific cod using pot gear, and all of these vessels could be regulated by this action.
The six Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups and the 65 communities they represent are small entities under the RFA. Each of the CDQ groups receives annual allocations of Pacific cod in the BSAI. The CDQ groups harvest these allocations with vessels they own and vessels they contract with. The vessels owned by the CDQ groups and used to target Pacific cod are primarily large catcher/processors using hook-and-line or trawl gear. In 2012, the CDQ groups harvested 24,402 metric tons of Pacific cod. Less than 15 percent of this catch was made by vessels using pot gear, none of which were owned by the CDQ groups (actual catch using pot gear is confidential). None of the Pacific cod caught by the CDQ groups was harvested within the proposed closure areas. As CDQ groups have never used pot gear to harvest Pacific cod within the proposed closure area, the proposed action is not expected to impact the CDQ groups, the CDQ communities, or the vessels that fish on their behalf.
The impacts of the proposed action on directly regulated small entities are analyzed in the IRFA. In recent years, many of the vessels identified in this analysis as having potential small entity impacts have become members of fishing cooperatives. Increased affiliation with the BSAI Freezer-Longline Cooperative, as well as various crab cooperatives, has resulted in many vessels now being classified as large entities due to these affiliations. This analysis has incorporated cooperative affiliation information to adjust the numbers of potentially directly regulated small entities and, thereby, the estimate of revenue at risk specific to small entities. The result is evident in the declining small entity impact estimates in 2010, where estimated impacts are near zero for many alternatives with the exception of potential CDQ impacts, which are, by definition, small although the vessels that harvest for CDQ organizations are themselves now large via affiliations. Thus, with increased membership in cooperatives, nearly all of the potentially directly regulated vessels are presently classified as large entities and the potential effects of the proposed action on small entities appears to be de-minimis.
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.
An IRFA requires a description of any significant alternatives to the preferred alternative that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The suite of potential actions includes six alternatives with components and options for closures in the Bering Sea to minimize the bycatch of PIBKC and reduce the risk of overfishing.
The Council's preferred alternative, Alternative 2b, was selected as the action alternative. Alternative 2b would close year round the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear to prevent overfishing of PIBKC and minimize bycatch of PIBKC in groundfish fisheries. Alternative 2b would further reduce PIBKC bycatch mortality in groundfish fisheries, enhancing the likelihood of a successful rebuilding effort.
Alternative 1 is the status quo or no action alternative, which would not change the closure to all trawl gear in
Alternatives 2 through 6 would retain all of the current protection measures in place for the PIBKC stock and apply additional measures. These alternatives would establish closure areas for specific groundfish fisheries that are described in the following paragraphs for each alternative.
Alternative 2 included three specific methods for closing the PIHCZ to directed fishing for a variety of groundfish fisheries. Alternative 2a would close the PIHCZ on an annual basis to groundfish fisheries that met a threshold of PIBKC bycatch from 2003 to 2010 that is greater than 5 percent of the ABC of PIBKC. Fisheries that met the 5-percent threshold are the Pacific cod hook-and-line fishery, Pacific cod pot fishery, yellowfin sole trawl fishery, and other flatfish trawl fishery. Alternative 2b, the preferred alternative proposed to be implemented by this action, would close the PIHCZ year round to Pacific cod pot fishing. Alternative 2c would close the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear if the total PIBKC bycatch in all groundfish fisheries in the BSAI reached 20 percent, 30 percent, or 50 percent of the overall trigger closure cap of 75 percent of the ABC. Alternative 2c would also require vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ to maintain 100 percent observer coverage. Alternatives 2a and 2c would have a greater impact on small entities than Alternative 2b because more vessels would be subject to potential closures in the PIHCZ. Alternative 2c would also increase the potential costs on small entities by increasing observer coverage requirements for these vessels.
Alternative 3 would close the existing ADF&G crab closure area between 168° and 170° West longitude, and between 57° and 58° North latitude to additional fishing effort, in addition to the status quo groundfish trawl closure. Under Alternative 3, Option 3a, this closure would apply to all groundfish fisheries that have contributed greater than a designated threshold to bycatch of PIBKC since 2003. The closure would apply to any fishery that had bycatch of PIBKC between 2003 and 2010 of greater than 5 percent of ABC. Under the 5 percent threshold, the closure would apply to the following fisheries: Yellowfin sole trawl, other flatfish trawl, Pacific cod pot, and Pacific cod hook-and-line. Alternative 3b would close the area to directed fishing for Pacific cod only. Alternative 3a would have a greater impact on small entities than Alternative 3b because more vessels would be subject to potential closures in the PIHCZ. While Alternative 3b could potentially have less of an impact on small entities than the other alternatives (data is confidential for all years except 2005), the Alternative 3 closure boundaries exclude southern parts of the PIHCZ where PIBKC bycatch by Pacific cod pot fishing has occurred (see Figure 5–25 in the EA).
Alternative 4 would establish a closure throughout the range of the PIBKC based on either the distribution of the PIBKC stock aggregated from 1975 to 2009, or from 1984 to 2009. This range of data represented recent trends of the known distribution of PIBKC based on current stock survey methodologies and is greater than the area closure in the PIHCZ and the ADF&G closures defined under Alternative 3. Alternatives 4a and 4b would establish closures consistent with the same criteria established for Alternatives 2a and 2b, and 3a and 3b, respectively. Alternative 4 would have a greater impact on small entities due to the greater size of the closure.
Alternative 5 would establish a PSC limit equal to either the overfishing limit (OFL), the ABC, or a proportion of the ABC for the PIBKC stock. All bycatch of the PIBKC in all groundfish fisheries would accrue toward this PSC limit, and those groundfish fisheries that contributed to greater than a designated threshold of PIBKC bycatch since 2003 would be closed once the fishery-wide PSC limit was reached.
Alternative 5 would have four closure area options: Options 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d, which correspond to the closure areas defined under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (1975 to 2009 PIBKC stock distribution and 1984 to 2009 PIBKC stock distribution), respectively. Under each of these options, the closure would be triggered by attainment of a fishery-wide PIBKC PSC limit set at the following options: PSC limit equal to the OFL, PSC limit equal to the ABC, PSC limit equal to 90 percent of the ABC, or PSC limit equal to 75 percent of the ABC. Under Option 5d, under the PSC limit equal to 90 percent of the ABC and the PSC limit equal to 75 percent of the ABC, there would be an additional option for allocation of the PSC limit by gear type: 40 Percent trawl gear, 40 percent pot gear, and 20 percent hook-and-line gear.
Alternative 6 would have two components: (1) Establish a year-round closure of the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear, and (2) establish a triggered closure of the area representing the distribution of the PIBKC stock from 1984 to 2009. The PSC limit associated with the triggered closure would be established as a fishery-wide level at 75 percent of the ABC. The PSC limit would be set either in the numbers of crab based on the average weight in the previous season or in numbers of crab based on a rolling 5-year average weight. The PSC limit would be further allocated to sectors either by gear type or to all groundfish fisheries in the aggregate by seasons.
In addition, each of the alternatives included options to increase observer coverage that could be applied to all fisheries or a specific fishery.
The Council ultimately did not consider trigger cap closures (Alternatives 2c, 5, and 6) viable alternatives, due to uncertainty in appropriate definition of the stock area and the resulting current limitations in the methodology for estimating mortality of PIBKC relative to the stock distribution (see discussion in Section 5.2.2 of the EA). These alternatives would not have a measurable impact that would minimize the bycatch of PIBKC relative to status quo. These alternatives could reduce the risk of overfishing, but they would not effectively prevent overfishing, consistent with the goals and objectives of this action.
None of the viable alternatives (Alternative 2a, Alternatives 3a and 3b, and Alternatives 4a and 4b) could potentially have less of an impact on fisheries than the Council's recommended alternative, 2b. Table 1–34 in the IRFA (see
This proposed action does not contain reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
Alaska, Fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(a) * * *
(6)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we are recognizing the Australian States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria as free of Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) and the State of Western Australia as free of Queensland fruit fly. Based on our evaluation of the survey protocols and other information provided by Australia's national plant protection organization, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, the Administrator has determined that these areas meet the criteria in our regulations for recognition as pest-free areas for either Medfly or Queensland fruit fly.
Mr. George Apgar Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–2240.
Under the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 319.56–69, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Section 319.56–4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. One of the designated phytosanitary measures is that the fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in the country of origin that meets the requirements of § 319.56–5 for freedom from that pest and are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-free area in the country of origin.
Under the regulations in § 319.56–5, APHIS requires that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance with the criteria for establishing freedom from pests found in International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4, “Requirements For the Establishment of Pest Free Areas.” The international standard was established by the International Plant Protection Convention of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and is incorporated by reference in our regulations in 7 CFR 300.5. In addition, APHIS must also approve the survey protocol used to determine and maintain pest-free status, as well as protocols for actions to be performed upon detection of a pest. Pest-free areas are subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status.
In accordance with our process, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on November 14, 2011. We received one comment by that date, from a State agricultural official. The comment is discussed below.
The commenter expressed concern about the expansion of fruit fly-free areas because the introduction of Medfly or Queensland fly into the commenter's State could result in costly eradication programs and possible economic losses for producers due to quarantines and market disruptions.
APHIS has recognized various areas of Australia as free of Medfly, Queensland fruit fly, and other fruit flies destructive to citrus for over 10 years, and no fruit fly problems have occurred as a result of commodities being imported into the United States from these areas. Populations of Medfly are restricted to a small part of the southwest of Western Australia and isolated communities in coastal towns in the north of the State. With the exception of the fruit fly exclusion zone consisting of parts of South Australia, northern Victoria, and southern New South Wales, populations of Queensland fruit fly are restricted to Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and the Northern Territory.
Freedom from Medfly outside the State of Western Australia has been established by results from ongoing monitoring with permanent Medfly traps, as part of the national trapping grid. Australia has not trapped a Medfly in an eastern Australian State since 1953 in Melbourne. After a single Medfly was detected in the Katherine area in Northwest Australia in 1994, eradication activities were initiated and no further detections have occurred.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia has declared the whole State of Western Australia free of Queensland fruit fly, and although incursions have been reported, these have been successfully eradicated. The Queensland fruit fly was eradicated from the Perth metropolitan area in 1990. APHIS will continuously monitor commodities from Australia with port-of-entry inspections. We believe that this gives the United States robust protection from fruit flies.
The commenter also stated that an area should not be declared free of only
Although APHIS is recognizing portions of Australia as free of Medfly and another portion of Australia as free of the Queensland fruit fly, host material (fruit) from these areas of Australia would still require mitigation, typically quarantine treatment, before importation into the United States. Commodities from the areas of Australia where Medfly is the only pest of concern would require only mitigations for Medfly. Likewise, commodities originating from areas in Australia where Queensland fruit fly is the only pest of concern would require only mitigations for Queensland fruit fly. The benefit of declaring these areas as free from only one of the fruit flies that may infest the commodity is that the treatment for either fruit fly is less stringent than the treatment that would be required for a commodity originating from an area where both species are present. For instance, cherries from Australia that are imported into the United States must undergo cold treatment for Queensland fruit fly and must be treated with methyl bromide for Medfly. However, with the recognition of fruit fly areas as described in this notice, no area of Australia is home to both Medfly and Queensland fruit fly. Therefore, cherries imported from Australia will only have to be treated with cold treatment if originating from an area where Queensland fruit fly is present or be treated with methyl bromide if originating from an area where Medfly is present.
The commenter asked about the trap densities in Australia, stating that the 25,000 fruit fly traps maintained by the NPPO of Australia and the Australian State and territorial governments is low compared to the more than 55,000 fruit fly traps maintained in Florida.
Australia maintains trap densities that are in line with International Atomic Energy Agency fruit fly trapping guidelines, the same guidelines that the United States follows. Australia's trapping manual specifies that the traps be deployed on a 400 km grid in urban areas and 1 km grid in horticultural production areas. The fruit fly trapping programs in Australia are concentrated in fruit-growing regions in order to provide support for fruit fly freedom for specific areas, such as the districts of Riverland, Riverina, and Sunraysia. The climate in many parts of Australia does not support the presence of fruit fly hosts or provide conditions suitable for fruit fly survival, and trapping is not required in these areas. In addition, Australia requires that their trapping systems, including trap density and placement, undergo annual audits to ensure their effectiveness.
The commenter asked about the population dynamics of Medfly and Queensland fruit fly in the specified Australian States. The commenter also asked what types of onsite assessments have been done and whether future program audits are planned.
In areas of Eastern Australia where the Queensland fruit fly can be found, it is most active in summer and fall. Cold and dry conditions, especially freezes, cause reductions in populations. The NPPO of Australia has declared the whole State of Western Australia free of Queensland fruit fly and, although incursions have been reported, these have been successfully eradicated.
Medfly is active in the summer months in Western Australia, where sterile insect technique (SIT), biocontrol, and other suppression strategies are being used. Confirmation of Medfly distribution in Western Australia is obtained and verified through specific detection surveys. Freedom from Medfly in other Australian States has been established by results from ongoing monitoring with permanent Medfly traps as part of the national trapping grid. In South Australia, any detections of Medfly from the stringent surveillance networks are rapidly followed by eradication activities. In the Northern Territory, a number of trapping and detection systems have been maintained in both urban and horticultural areas for Medfly since 1985. While there have been some detections of small numbers of Medfly in South Australia and the Northern Territory, effective detection and eradication programs have successfully maintained both South Australia and the Northern Territory as free from Medfly.
On-site assessments by APHIS were conducted for the pest-free areas in Riverland, Riverina, and Sunraysia when they were first established. Based on our experiences with the NPPO of Australia and with the importation of fruit fly host commodities from areas APHIS has previously recognized as free of fruit flies, we determined that no additional site visits were necessary here. We will inspect commodities imported from Australia for fruit flies at the port of entry and we will rely on the annual survey data from the NPPO of Australia to inform us if fruit flies are found in areas that we have recognized as free of fruit flies. We do not currently plan to conduct further site visits or formal program audits but reserve the right to do so in the future if necessary.
The commenter also expressed concern about the adequacy, in his view, of opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the initial stages of the development of these types of program proposals. The commenter requested the opportunity to participate in site visits and initial program review discussions on issues that could directly impact his State.
APHIS is committed to a transparent process and an inclusive role for stakeholders in our risk analysis process. To that end, we have put in place a stakeholder notification system
Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56–5(c), we are announcing the Administrator's determination that the States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria meet the criteria of § 319.56–5(a) and (b) with respect to freedom from Medfly and the State of Western Australia meets the criteria of § 319.56–5(a) and (b) with respect to freedom from Queensland fruit fly. Accordingly, we are amending the list of pest-free areas to list the States of New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria as free of Medfly and the State of Western Australia as free of Queensland fruit fly. A list of pest-free areas currently recognized by APHIS can be found at
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are adding a region of Argentina, consisting of the areas of Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, to the lists of regions that are considered free of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). We are taking this action because we have determined that this region is free of rinderpest and FMD. We are also adding the Patagonia Region to the list of regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and meat products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected countries. These actions update the disease status of the Patagonia Region with regard to rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of those diseases by providing additional requirements for any meat and meat products imported into the United States from the Patagonia Region of Argentina.
Effective Date: October 28, 2014.
Dr. Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–3300.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and swine, and products from these animals, from regions where rinderpest or FMD is considered to exist.
Within part 94, § 94.1 contains requirements governing the importation of ruminants and swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists and the importation of the meat of any ruminants or swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists to prevent the introduction of either disease into the United States. We consider rinderpest and FMD to exist in all regions except those listed in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of that section as free of rinderpest and FMD.
Section 94.11 of the regulations contains requirements governing the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from regions that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. Such regions are listed in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of that section.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, § 92.2, contain requirements for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region. If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in support of the request, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) believes the request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available for public comment through a notice published in the
In accordance with that process, on January 23, 2014, we published in the
However, because of the Patagonia Region's proximity to and trading relationships with FMD-affected regions, we found that it is necessary to impose certain restrictions in accordance with § 94.11 on the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from the Patagonia Region.
In the same notice we also made available an evaluation assessing the rinderpest status of South America for public review and comment. Rinderpest has never been established in South America. No South American country has ever reported the disease except Brazil, which had an outbreak in 1921 that was limited in scope and quickly eradicated. Furthermore, the global distribution of rinderpest has diminished significantly in recent years as a result of the Food and Agriculture Organization Global Rinderpest Eradication Program. The last known cases of rinderpest worldwide occurred in the southern part of the “Somali pastoral ecosystem” consisting of southern Somalia, eastern Kenya, and southern Ethiopia. In May 2011, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) announced its recognition of global rinderpest freedom.
We solicited comments on the notice of availability for 60 days ending on March 24, 2014, and extended the comment period for an additional 30 days, ending April 23, 2014. We received 33 comments by that date, from State and national livestock associations and from private citizens. The commenters raised a number of issues about our proposed action. The comments are discussed below.
Five commenters specifically addressed our proposal to recognize South America as free of rinderpest. All of those commenters expressed support for that determination.
Many commenters raised concerns about the risk analysis for FMD. These concerns included concerns about the methodology, scope, hazard identification, release assessment, exposure assessment, risk estimation, and discussion of geographical details.
Several commenters stated that the specific methodology and measurements used during the site visits to support the qualitative risk analysis are not available for review. One commenter expressed concern that such documentation was not collected or recorded. That commenter also stated that APHIS should develop a protocol to be used for site visits so that reviewers' assessments can be analyzed and summarized more objectively, and then made available with APHIS' conclusions of the risk analysis.
The purpose of the site visit is to verify and complement the information previously provided by the country. APHIS site visits consist of an in-depth evaluation of the risk factors identified by APHIS in § 92.2 as factors to consider in assessing the risk of the relevant animal disease posed by a region.
APHIS has also published guidance on our approach to implementing our regionalization process and the way in which we apply risk analysis to the decision-making process for regionalization. This document can be found on the APHIS Web site at
Site visit findings are thoroughly described throughout the risk analysis, including visits to local offices (pages 21–22), airports (pages 33–34), border controls (pages 37–38), farms (page 43), and laboratories (pages 60–64).
One commenter stated that APHIS should regard the eight factors as more than a simple checklist for reviewers and that consistent implementation of the factors should be completely verified.
APHIS agrees with the commenter. When conducting a site visit, APHIS verifies that all the factors related to the FMD control and eradication program, including prevention, controls, surveillance, and reporting, are in place and that the country has strong veterinary authority and infrastructure to carry out the FMD program.
Some commenters stated that according to the risk analysis, APHIS only conducted three site visits to the Patagonia Region. The commenters stated that APHIS should maintain a more active and robust presence in the region.
APHIS believes that its site visits to the Patagonia Region, in conjunction with the other documentation and information APHIS has reviewed, provided APHIS with sufficient information to correctly determine the region's FMD status. As a member of the OIE, Argentina must immediately notify the OIE of any suspect cases of FMD that may occur in the future. In addition, under § 92.2, a region that is granted a specific animal health status may be required to submit additional information pertaining to that animal health status, or to allow APHIS to conduct additional information collection activities in order to maintain its animal health status.
One commenter stated that the hazard identification appears to be lacking information, and that APHIS seems to consider that FMD is the only hazard of concern. The commenter also stated that the risk analysis does not provide detailed information about the different serotypes of the FMD virus, does not discuss the efficacy of the FMD vaccination programs in regions surrounding Patagonia, and does not mention virus survival in commodities of concern, such as sheep and lamb embryos and semen. The commenter stated further that the risk analysis does not provide any details regarding the onset of clinical signs for the different species or focus on subclinical disease or the species, such as sheep, that may display mild clinical signs that can go unnoticed and undetected.
APHIS notes that Argentina requested FMD status recognition; therefore the risk analysis focuses on the FMD status of the region and not on other hazards. Appendix I of the risk analysis describes the different serotypes of the FMD virus. In the risk analysis APHIS also describes the disease status of adjacent regions, including the FMD outbreaks that occurred in 2003 and 2006, and the eradication and control programs in adjacent regions.
The vaccination rates in the adjacent region of Northern Argentina reached over 99 percent between 2008 and 2012. In addition, the region of Northern Argentina has several overlapping controls to ensure compliance with vaccination calendars through matching vaccination records to movement permits and census data and through field inspections. We have updated the risk analysis to add the following to the discussion of the disease status of adjacent regions: “Vaccination of cattle is mandatory in the area north of the 42nd parallel with the exception of Patagonia North B (the area adjacent to Patagonia South, a region without vaccination) and recently, Patagonia North A and the summer pastures (zona veranadas) of Calingasta Valleys in the province of San Juan. The Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA) is the Government of Argentina's enforcement authority and regulating body for planning, implementing, and controlling actions to eradicate FMD. SENASA establishes the technical requirements for the vaccination program. Vaccination can only be performed by authorized personnel who are trained, registered, and accredited/audited by SENASA. Vaccination coverage rates have been over 97 percent in the region above the 42nd parallel (with the exception of Patagonia North B, and most recently Patagonia North A, in which vaccination is not conducted) since 2001.”
On page 71 of the risk analysis, we described embryos as presenting a negligible risk of infecting an exposed recipient with the FMD virus, as the zona pellucida is an important barrier against pathogens, and only embryos with an intact zona pellucida may be imported into the United States under the provisions of § 98.3(h). On page 72 of the document we described semen as presenting a likelihood of exposure of susceptible animals to this virus if the semen is collected from an infected animal. However, based on the conclusion of the release assessment that diseased animals are not likely to exist in the Patagonia Region or, if they do, are not likely to go undetected, APHIS considers it unlikely that U.S. animals would be exposed to infected semen from the Patagonia Region.
APHIS looked at clinical disease in all the relevant species, including those, like swine, that are not expected to be exported from the Patagonia Region. Clinical disease in sheep is discussed in Appendix I. APHIS has updated the risk assessment to add the following to the Appendix: “The incubation period in sheep is similar to that observed in bovines, and has been reported to be 1 to 12 days, with most cases appearing in 2–8 days.” We understand that subclinical disease or species-specific symptoms may result in unnoticed and undetected viral infection. However, because no vaccination is carried out in the Patagonia Region, any cattle or swine in that region exposed to the FMD virus would act as good sentinels of an outbreak.
One commenter stated that the release (entry) assessment focuses on the factors in § 92.2 rather than providing a description of all the biological pathways necessary for an importation activity to introduce the disease into the United States. The commenter stated that this section could be strengthened by a detailed chronological list of FMD outbreak information for the Patagonia Region and the bordering regions to include the year of the outbreak, epidemiological disease spread information, risk factors, maps, and the controls implemented during the outbreak.
When preparing a risk analysis, APHIS evaluates the relevant pathways as described by the scientific literature and supported by the OIE. Therefore, on page 70 of the risk analysis, APHIS has described the biological pathway that it
In conducting an animal disease status evaluation in a foreign region, APHIS focuses on the likelihood that the region is free of the hazard(s) by evaluating, for example, the official veterinary capacity and authority, surveillance systems, and import controls, in place in the exporting country. APHIS believes that an analysis of these factors provides a robust analysis of the likelihood of release of FMD into the United States. Given that there is a very low likelihood that FMD is present in the Patagonia Region or would be introduced into Argentina without detection, the corresponding entry likelihood into the United States is considered also to be very low.
One commenter stated that the exposure assessment does not discuss the potential transmission of FMD within and from quarantine facilities.
We are confident that the exposure assessment appropriately describes the biological pathways necessary for exposure of animals and humans in the United States to FMD, and that APHIS' regulatory safeguards will provide effective protection against the risks associated with the importation of ruminants or their products from the Patagonia Region of Argentina. These safeguards include subjecting animals and animal products from the region to certain restrictions because of the region's proximity to FMD-affected countries (§ 94.11); certification that ruminants and swine have been kept in a region entirely free of FMD and rinderpest (for ruminants) for 60 days prior to export (§§ 93.405 and 93.505); and a minimum quarantine of 30 days from the date of arrival at the port of entry for most imported ruminants (§ 93.411), and 15 days for all imported swine (§ 93.510).
One commenter stated that sufficient data is lacking for the plausible risk exposure pathways mentioned in the exposure assessment.
In the risk analysis, the exposure pathways are defined for the importation of sheep meat, genetic materials, and susceptible live ruminants. We anticipate that these are the commodities that will be exported to the United States based on the information provided in Argentina's application, our knowledge of the livestock industry in the Patagonia Region, and what commodities are exported from the Patagonia Region now.
One commenter stated that there is a disparity in the risk levels for embryos in the exposure assessment with the documentation as negligible on page 71 and low on page 72.
The risk of transmission of FMD via embryos is negligible. APHIS will correct the wording on page 72.
The commenters stated that the risk analysis does not include sufficient detail for geographical landmarks outlining the Patagonia Region or maps with the necessary level of detail to be useful.
APHIS disagrees. The geographic landmarks outlining the Patagonia Region are described on page 27 of the risk analysis. This description also includes a discussion of the area and climate. Figure 1 is a map of Argentina showing different provinces (including oceans and neighboring countries) and Figure 2 shows the regionalization status as defined by the OIE after Patagonia North B was recognized as free without vaccination in May 2007.
One commenter stated that the risk analysis review and general assessment process do not seem to be completely transparent and are not documented satisfactorily for thorough outside analysis, but did not identify specific aspects of the process that seemed opaque.
APHIS is confident that the review and assessment process is appropriately explained and documented in the risk analysis document.
Several commenters stated that APHIS should prepare a quantitative risk analysis and make it available for public review. Some commenters stated that the qualitative format for the risk analysis is subjective and fails to objectively quantify the probability of risk and adequately assess the magnitude of the consequences. One commenter noted that APHIS prepared a quantitative risk analysis in 2002 for importation of beef from Uruguay and asked why APHIS chose to prepare a qualitative risk analysis for the Patagonia Region.
APHIS believes that a qualitative analysis is appropriate in this situation. APHIS' evaluations are based on science and conducted according to the factors identified in § 92.2, which include biosecurity measures, livestock demographics, and marketing practices. As explained in the risk analysis, we conducted an in-depth evaluation of the 11 factors used by APHIS to evaluate the animal health status of a region prior to 2012. The factors include: (1) The authority, organization, and infrastructure of the veterinary services organization in the region; (2) Disease status; (3) The status of adjacent regions with respect to the agent; (4) The extent of an active disease control program, if any, if the agent is known to exist in the region; (5) The vaccination status of the region; (6) The degree to which the region is separated from adjacent regions of higher risk through physical or other barriers; (7) The extent to which movement of animals and animal products is controlled from regions of higher risk, and the level of biosecurity regarding such movements; (8) Livestock demographics and marketing practices in the region; (9) The type and extent of disease surveillance in the region; (10) Diagnostic laboratory capacity; and (11) Policies and infrastructure for animal disease control in the region. Neither the regulations in 9 CFR part 92 nor APHIS guidance documents require a quantitative risk analysis or indicate that one is needed here.
Most of APHIS' risk analyses have been, and continue to be, qualitative in nature. Over time, APHIS has come to use qualitative risk assessments given the limitations of quantitative models, although APHIS recognizes that quantitative risk analysis models can be useful in cases where the risk management questions or information cannot be addressed with a qualitative model. When coupled with site visit evaluations, APHIS believes that qualitative risk analyses provide the necessary information to assess risk of disease introduction through importation. Additionally, quantitative modes are resource-intensive and take a much longer time to complete. Quantitative models also tend to be data-intensive, and the types of data needs required by such models are often not available or adequate under most circumstances. At the same time that quantitative models are data-intensive, they are also necessarily developed using a set of assumptions that may not always adequately represent the biological situation in question, thus resulting in a wide range of uncertainty in interpretation of the model outcomes. Quantitative models also require constant updating, which is dependent on availability of current research and data, and thus these models may not
One commenter asked what types of training programs are given to SENASA personnel stationed at the border checkpoints and patrolling in the areas along the border.
The training of SENASA border personnel is described on page 30 of the risk analysis. The border personnel are trained on a number of topics, including legal framework, national and international zoosanitary status, epidemiological characterization of the region, and import and export procedures.
Two commenters expressed concern that Argentina's border control and security between the Patagonia Region and neighboring regions have not been adequately verified.
Border control and security in the Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 27 through 37 of the risk analysis. APHIS looked at these issues during all of its site visits. Based on those visits and other documents and information that APHIS has obtained and made available with the risk analysis, APHIS is confident that Argentina's border controls with respect to the Patagonia Region are sufficient to prevent the introduction of FMD into the region.
One commenter stated that in addition to assessing the risk of disease directly from animals and animal products from the Patagonia Region, it is also important to measure and address risk due to potential economic incentives to trans-ship animals and animal products. Two additional commenters expressed concern that because Argentina consumes a large portion of the meat that is produced in the country, and because there is transit between regions for access and delivery of beef and meat products, there is a greater risk of contamination and infection across regional boundaries.
As we explained above, APHIS has assessed the border controls and security of the Patagonia Region and we are confident that these are sufficient to prevent the introduction of FMD into the region. We also note that Argentina has effective and appropriate requirements for the importation of susceptible commodities into the Patagonia Region. These are discussed on page 69 of the risk analysis.
One commenter asked what disinfection methods are used against the FMD virus at the border points.
As explained on page 38 of the risk analysis, disinfection methods include spraying vehicles with disinfectants that are effective against the FMD virus. Among other effective disinfectants, SENASA uses the following: 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite, 3 percent acetic acid, 4 percent potassium peroxymonosulfate and 1 percent sodium chloride, and 4 percent sodium carbonate.
One commenter stated that SENASA reports that all producers, animal caretakers, and transporters were well-versed in recognizing clinical signs of FMD in livestock. The commenter asked how these individuals were trained to recognize clinical and subclinical signs of FMD, and if there is any accreditation or certification process for their training. The commenter also asked if there was any verification process for their reported FMD recognition skills.
APHIS notes that “subclinical disease” means that there are no observable clinical signs of the disease. The training requirements for official and non-official veterinarians are described on page 19 of the risk analysis, and the training requirements for SENASA personnel are described on page 20. In all cases the training is in line with the main strategies in Argentina's FMD National Eradication Plan. In addition, different components of FMD outreach and awareness programs (e.g., radio advertisement, presentations to industry, etc.) remind producers of vaccination campaigns, clinical signs compatible with the disease, and compulsory reporting of suspect cases.
With respect to verification of disease recognition skills, SENASA has a training and promotion program, which includes the performance of drills. The training is carried out by the Bureau of Epidemiology. In addition, the Field General Coordination holds meetings to provide updates on the information, methodology, and standards that the local veterinarians should know. Training records are maintained by the Bureau of Human Resources and Training in which official agents get credits for the various classes they attend. The credits are added up in a score that is used towards promotions in the organization. The Bureau of Human Resources and Training coordinates the training activities of each of the National Bureaus through training consultants. In the case of the National Bureau of Animal Health, two professionals work as consultants who lead the 22 training delegates of the provinces who coordinate, audit, and guide the process of teaching official veterinarians. This training program is described in the risk analysis on page 67.
Three commenters stated that over half the sheep in Argentina reside in the Patagonia Region. The sheep are generally raised in extensive management systems and since FMD clinical signs are relatively subtle in sheep, it is important that data be collected for public review on which specific diagnostic practices and risk mitigation measures are used at border crossings to prevent FMD from entering Patagonia. One commenter asked specifically how APHIS will ensure that there are enhanced surveillance systems in place that will preclude the virus circulating in the sheep population undetected.
The commenters are correct that sheep are the predominant livestock species in the Patagonia Region. Almost 60 percent of the sheep in Argentina reside in Patagonia. The livestock density is less than one animal per hectare. Due to extensive husbandry practices and low animal density, contact between sheep and other species and with other sheep is minimized, reducing the risk of disease spread in the event that the FMD virus was introduced into the region. As we explained above, no vaccination is carried out in the Patagonia Region, so any cattle or swine in that region exposed to the FMD virus would act as good sentinels of an outbreak.
Border control and security in the Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 27 through 37 of the risk analysis. SENASA conducts serological surveillance (testing blood serum for viral activity) of sheep and cattle. This is an effective indicator of the FMD situation because the FMD susceptible species are not vaccinated against FMD. Furthermore, for sheep, premises identification is required, either by eartag, which includes the CUIG (Clave Unica de Identification Ganadera—Unique Holding Identification Code) number of the farm, or ear notch. The eartag color and shape may be selected by the farmer (the color is not specific to the FMD status of the region as in cattle). Ear notches are controlled by and registered with SENASA to ensure that they are unique. SENASA requires all premises with agricultural animal production to register with SENASA and obtain a RENSPA (Registro Nacional Sanitario de Productores Agropecuarios—National Sanitary Registry of Ag-Producers) number, an alphanumeric identifier that encodes information about individual premises.
Many commenters stated that Argentina has shown a trend of decreasing compliance in audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) between 2005 and 2009. One of the commenters stated that Argentina's history of compliance issues could influence their ability to consistently and successfully enforce control measures within the Patagonia Region in order to successfully mitigate the risk from the possible entry of FMD into this region from the surrounding higher-risk areas. One commenter asked if APHIS consulted with FSIS as part of our evaluation, and if so, what was FSIS' feedback.
The purpose of APHIS' evaluation was to assess the FMD situation in the Patagonia Region and to evaluate Argentina's ability to comply with the certification requirements for exporting specific FMD-susceptible commodities to the United States, including the certification requirements in § 94.11 for meat and other animal products imported from regions that are considered free of FMD and rinderpest but are subject to additional restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with regions that are not free of FMD or rinderpest. Based on its site visits and other documentation and information, APHIS concluded that Argentina's legal framework, animal health infrastructure, movement and border controls, diagnostic capabilities, surveillance programs, and emergency response capacity are sufficient to detect, prevent, control, and eradicate FMD outbreaks within the boundaries of the Patagonia Region of Argentina. Moreover, with respect to the Patagonia Region, APHIS concluded that the Argentine veterinary authority is capable of complying with our requirements.
Nevertheless, based on the comments, APHIS has reviewed the last five FSIS audits conducted in Argentina at the slaughter level. The FSIS audits concluded that ante-mortem inspection processes, which are relevant to the detection of FMD during the slaughter process, were conducted satisfactorily.
One commenter stated that reviews of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (EC FVO) audits identified points of concern in the areas of border controls, animal identification, vaccination controls, and other concerns. The audits evaluated animal health controls concerning FMD, related animal health control measures, and related certification procedures for fresh bovine and ovine meat intended for export to the European Union (EU).
The overall objective of the EC FVO audits was to assess the animal health controls in place in order to verify that guarantees provided by the competent authorities of Argentina, concerning the health status of the country with regard to FMD, continue to meet the requirements for the export of ovine and bovine meat from Argentina to the EU. In response to the comments, APHIS reviewed the latest reports. The most recent report, from 2012, concluded that the official FMD control system in place for Argentina is reliable and meets EU requirements.
One commenter stated that the 2012 EC FVO audit showed a less than satisfactory enforcement of some requirements of the sheep identification and movement registration system in the Patagonia Region. The commenter also stated that the same audit identified a weak official control system along the Bolivian border, which cannot ensure the adequate management of risks related to animal movements and sufficient verification of satisfactory implementation of vaccination campaigns for FMD. The commenter further stated that limited attention is being paid to official “on-the-spot” controls on FMD vaccination, which casts doubt on the adequate fulfillment of the vaccination coverage in all areas with an increased risk of FMD.
As discussed above, the 2012 EC FVO report concluded that Argentina meets the requirements set forth by the OIE and the EU for complying with both the EU's certification requirements for fresh bovine and ovine meat and Articles 8.5.4 and 8.5.5 of the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code recognizing an FMD zone where vaccination is not practiced and an FMD zone where vaccination is practiced. Furthermore, with regard to the commenter's concern that the lack of “on-the-spot” controls on FMD vaccination would lead to inadequate fulfillment of vaccination coverage, as we discussed on page 59 of the risk analysis, after the 2012 EC FVO audit, and in collaboration with external animal health experts, Argentina revised its surveillance sampling design in order to confirm adequate vaccination coverage in its territory. The revised sampling design focuses on the effectiveness of various vaccination campaign plans as implemented by the local offices. At the time of APHIS' November 2013 site visit, over 50 percent of samples had already been collected with only two reactors identified. APHIS notes that the reactor animals are not suspect for FMD or other diseases; the reaction could be related either to immunity as a result of vaccination or to the presence of proteins in the vaccine. On completion of the study, SENASA expects to be able to compare effectiveness of operational implementation of the National Vaccination Plan at the local level. Vaccination coverage rates in Northern Argentina have been reported at over 97 percent. In reference to the Bolivian border, APHIS recognizes that some borders in the northern part of Argentina might be porous, and that other mitigations might be required in such areas in the event Argentina would request to export a particular commodity into the United States. APHIS notes, however, that such borders are located over 2,500 miles from the region that is under consideration in this notice.
One commenter stated that the EC FVO audits showed a limited contribution of passive surveillance to the detection and notification of suspect cases of FMD. The commenter asked if the current system of passive surveillance in Argentina is really working, and asked how the system of passive surveillance could work effectively if it is not actively pursued.
The reporting of FMD suspect cases is infrequent in the Patagonia Region; APHIS believes that this is because FMD is not present in the region and other vesicular diseases are rare. As we noted on page 24 of the risk analysis, there were no reports of suspect vesicular diseases in 2012 or 2013 in the Patagonia Region. To assess the ability of veterinary officials at local offices to respond to a suspicious case of disease, the site visit team asked to view records of reports of a suspected notifiable disease (in this case, mange) during the 2009 site visit. The information shared revealed that a visit to the affected farm was made within 24 hours of the report, and all animals on the farm were inspected, with samples collected and submitted to the laboratory on the same day. The farm was immediately quarantined upon the report of the suspect case and the quarantine remained in place throughout the
Finally, APHIS notes that the data provided in our risk analysis are more up-to-date than those provided by the EC FVO audits. Further surveillance efforts from 2001 to 2013 are described on page 57, surveillance efforts specifically in Patagonia North A are described on page 58, and other ongoing surveillance efforts on page 59. Based on those findings APHIS concluded that the design under which serological sampling is conducted in Argentina is both valid and efficient and the sampling coverage is adequate and that the serological sampling is adequate to detect disease and identify and measure viral activity (if any) in the area.
A commenter stated that the EC FVO audits present wildlife issues as a concern for the continued management of FMD risk. The commenter stated specifically that this issue required investigations to assess the risk associated with the presence of pigs and wild boars in the areas neighboring Bolivia and Paraguay, and their possible exposure to feeding practices that may carry a risk of introduction of the FMD virus.
Although several South American wild animal species are susceptible to FMD, research into FMD in South America has determined that wildlife populations, including feral swine, do not play a significant role in the maintenance and transmission of FMD. During outbreak situations, wildlife may become affected by FMD; however, as we discussed on pages 15–16 of the environmental assessment, the likelihood that they would become carriers under field conditions is rare. Therefore, it is unlikely that FMD would be introduced into the Patagonia Region through movement of infected wildlife. The active surveillance on wild boars conducted in 2013 is described on page 58 of the risk analysis. In the serological study conducted in swine, a total of 462 samples were collected from 76 establishments in Patagonia North A. The wildlife surveillance consisted of a total of 21 samples. All porcine samples were tested using the LF ELISA test with negative results.
Furthermore, feeding garbage to animals is prohibited in Argentina unless specific products undergo a cooking process guaranteeing destruction of pathogenic organisms (pages 21 and 22 of the risk analysis). In the event that these laws were circumvented, other factors evaluated in the risk analysis, including biosecurity measures and response capabilities, would mitigate disease risks.
Two commenters stated that wildlife may move across traversable national boundaries and infect other wildlife and livestock. One of the commenters stated that while the environmental assessment seeks to address wildlife issues and FMD risk, there have not been enough wildlife studies or efforts to document the natural wildlife movements in Patagonia or the surrounding regions. The commenter further stated that no ideas have been advanced to identify practical mitigation measures for wildlife species.
As we explained earlier, research into FMD in South America has determined that wildlife populations, including feral swine, do not play a significant role in the maintenance and transmission of FMD. During outbreak situations, wildlife may become affected by FMD; however, the likelihood that they would become carriers under field conditions is rare and it is unlikely that FMD would be introduced into the Patagonia Region through movement of infected wildlife.
One commenter stated that there are clear weaknesses within Argentina's standards of surveillance and management practices, specifically inadequate import controls and quarantine procedures, that could put the U.S. beef supply at risk.
APHIS disagrees with the commenter. We found no evidence of weakness in the import controls or quarantine procedures in the Patagonia Region and are confident that they provide effective protection against the introduction of FMD to the region.
One commenter stated that a November 2013 report confirmed that Brazil and Argentina were beginning a second round of vaccination for FMD. The commenter stated that this shows that Argentina had not previously made serious efforts to address its disease problem.
There is no vaccination for FMD in the Patagonia Region. APHIS does not recognize regions that vaccinate for FMD as free of the disease. The vaccination activities that occur in other regions of Argentina and in Brazil are part of the FMD control program in those regions.
One commenter asked how APHIS would monitor and verify compliance with the measures and restrictions that APHIS would place on the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The commenter stated that in addition to monitoring processing operations and sampling, and in addition to OIE reporting requirements, the responsible government agencies of the exporting region should be required to submit data and status review information regularly, as is done in the United States between APHIS and State animal health agencies. The commenter stated that these measures, in addition to follow-up site visits and risk monitoring, would further assure that the appropriate systems and procedures are being followed.
Under the provisions of § 92.2(g), regions that are granted animal health status may be required to submit additional information pertaining to animal health status or allow APHIS to conduct additional information collection activities in order to maintain that status. Specifically, we ask for additional information if they report suspect or known cases of disease to the OIE; if we receive public information about suspect or known cases of disease; if the region that was previously evaluated has been re-defined; if there are public reports stating changes in the veterinary authority, budgets, or controls in border areas; if there are outbreaks or suspect cases in border regions; or if there are changes in any of the other factors we consider when preparing a risk analysis. We do not require submission of additional information on a regular schedule because we are concerned primarily with events that could potentially affect the risk status of the region under consideration.
One commenter stated that there was no indication of ongoing verification of risk control measures other than APHIS personnel may inspect slaughter establishments periodically. The commenter stated that a more routine and rigorous system of verification should be established.
As we explained above, regions that are recognized for animal health status may be required either to provide or to allow APHIS to collect additional information in order to maintain their status if we have reason to believe that events in the region or in surrounding regions could affect the risk status of the region under consideration. We also note that APHIS uses a wide variety of sources to conduct verification activities in the Patagonia Region. These sources include the U.S. Embassy, multilateral relationships with trading partners, and the OIE.
One commenter stated that, according to APHIS reports to the U.S. Animal Health Association's Transmissible Diseases of Swine Committee, from 2009 to 2013 a number of unlicensed garbage feeders were found in the United States each year by State and
Searches for non-licensed garbage feeding facilities are regularly conducted using several different techniques as part of the duties of APHIS animal health staff, as well as State animal health staff and staff with other State agencies. When unlicensed garbage feeding facilities are identified, the unauthorized activity is documented and the facility is brought into compliance. Depending on the State, all swine on the premises may be quarantined and tested for foreign animal diseases. Information on the number of inspections conducted to detect unlicensed garbage feeding facilities, the number of unlicensed facilities identified, and resolution of unlicensed facilities are captured at the State level and evaluated by APHIS on a regular basis. We do not find the number of unlicensed garbage-feeding facilities to be too large or their existence to pose a risk of FMD given the regular monitoring for them.
One commenter stated that according to the risk analysis, APHIS considers the most likely pathway of exposure of domestic livestock to FMD is through feeding of contaminated food waste to swine, but that APHIS considers the likelihood of exposure of susceptible swine to the FMD virus through inadequately processed food waste to be low. The commenter stated that this position is based on a 1995 risk analysis and a 2001 survey, and that the pork industry has undergone significant changes since then. The commenter asked what confidence APHIS has that these sources adequately reflect the current risk to the U.S. pork industry, and if the 1995 work should be repeated with more current data.
APHIS acknowledges that the pork industry in general has undergone significant changes since 1995; however, the garbage-feeding industry in particular has not. APHIS is confident that the 1995 risk analysis and 2001 survey adequately reflect the current risk to the U.S. pork industry from contaminated food waste fed to swine.
One commenter stated that under the Swine Health Protection Act, licensed facilities are required to have two to four temperature checks of garbage cooking equipment every year. The commenter asked what records licensed facilities maintain in order to verify that they are meeting the time and temperature requirements on days when they are not inspected, and if those records are adequate to provide assurance to APHIS that times and temperatures are being met outside of normal inspections.
During regularly scheduled visits to licensed waste feeding operations, inspectors observe the cooking procedure to ensure the operator understands the proper procedures and is able to conduct them properly. If there are any suspicions that cooking is not being properly conducted, the inspector will make additional unscheduled visits to ensure that cooking procedures are sufficient to ensure inactivation of any pathogens, if present. APHIS believes that this approach helps to ensure proper cooking time and temperature even when inspectors are not present.
One commenter asked about APHIS' confidence that FMD would be detected early in licensed garbage feeding operations. The commenter also asked what we estimated the time for detection would be and if it would be adequate to meet the goals of the Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP) for disease detection.
Because of the routine visits of inspectors to garbage feeding facilities, which provide opportunities for education on disease signs and requirements for reporting, as well as the opportunity for direct observation of signs of illness in animals, APHIS believes that the presence of FMD or other reportable conditions would be detected more quickly in these types of premises than in other, unregulated premises.
One commenter stated that effective surveillance for vesicular diseases relies on a high level of awareness by producers and veterinarians on what clinical signs are consistent with vesicular diseases and how to report suspected cases. The commenter asked if APHIS had current demographics on the level of biosecurity, security, veterinary care, routine health observations, and knowledge of disease reporting pathways in garbage-fed populations to meet the goal of a FAD PReP. The commenter also asked what level of confidence APHIS has regarding the education provided to licensed garbage feeders, whether biosecurity and veterinary care protocols are being followed; and whether disease reporting procedures are being followed.
Licensed garbage feeders are generally provided with education during routine inspections by animal health regulatory staff on topics including the importance of proper cooking, signs of foreign animal diseases, appropriate biosecurity measures, etc. Mandatory inspections provide confidence in the ability of licensed garbage feeding operations to maintain biosecurity and reporting requirement protocols. Demonstration of adequate facilities and equipment is a requirement for obtaining and maintaining licensure.
One commenter asked what level of confidence we have that FMD would be detected in unlicensed garbage-feeding operations, and what the estimated time for detection would be.
If FMD were to occur in an unlicensed garbage feeding facility, APHIS estimates that likelihood of detection would be no different than introduction into any swine herd.
One commenter asked if budget cuts to APHIS and State animal health staffs have had a negative effect on the ability to carry out the regulatory activities outlined in the Swine Health Protection Act, and if the reduction in regulatory activities had decreased the number of inspections and searches for unlicensed garbage-feeding operations to a level lower than what was used in the 1995 risk analysis.
While budget cuts to APHIS have resulted in reorganizing priorities within the Swine Health Program (SHP), our SHP activities remain at recommended levels. The changes made have resulted in shifting of lower-yield activities in favor of allowing SHP inspectors to spend more time interacting with swine producers. For instance, APHIS no longer supports State and Federal employees conducting regular trips to restaurants to inquire about garbage disposal. Instead, this activity has been passed to other State partners, including public health and environmental health employees, who routinely frequent restaurants as part of their daily activities. These individuals report to State cooperators when they uncover suspicions of unlicensed garbage feeding, which allows APHIS inspectors and State cooperators to focus on likely violations. This, in turn, allows inspectors to spend more time on swine farms, working with producers, providing education, and performing inspections, among other duties.
One commenter stated that according to the sixth edition (2013) of the OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services, stability of structures, sustainability of policies, and operational funding are listed as critical competencies for institutional and financial sustainability. The commenter asked how confident APHIS is that the short- and long-term levels of funding for SENASA are adequate to carry out their mission related to this proposed rule.
As described on page 17 of the risk analysis, SENASA reported that its 2013 budget was 1.3 billion pesos (approximately $200.7 million). SENASA officials described the system as self-sufficient because user fees are required for almost every service SENASA provides, including slaughter surveillance, issuances of certificates, and laboratory tests. The budget for the laboratory is 60 million pesos (approximately $12 million). APHIS finds no reason to believe that the funding will change, as stable funding for the FMD control and eradication programs in Argentina has been in place for over a decade.
One commenter asked whether APHIS' funding levels are adequate to carry out the agency's mission, especially verification of practices conducted in Patagonia.
While APHIS' funding levels have decreased in recent years, we are still confident in our ability to carry out our mission successfully. As we explained above, APHIS uses a wide variety of sources to conduct verification activities in the Patagonia Region, including the U.S. Embassy, multilateral relationships with trading partners, and the OIE.
Two commenters stated that some of the supporting documentation is in a foreign language and no official translation was provided. One commenter stated that while stakeholders could shoulder the cost burden to have the material translated, it would not constitute an official translation.
In addition to the risk analysis and other supporting documents, APHIS provided the public with documents that were referred to in the risk analysis. Some of these documents were provided by the Government of Argentina and are in Spanish. These documents include presentations that were done at the local offices. For the documents that have not been officially translated for the public, APHIS verified the data when conducting the site visit. This information, including data analysis and conclusions, is thoroughly described throughout the risk analysis that was made available for public comment.
Many commenters noted that there was no economic impact analysis associated with this notice. One commenter stated that while an economic analysis is not required for risk evaluation notices, the economic analysis for the 2007 proposed rule had deficiencies. Others stated that infected beef entering the United States could have a negative impact on our domestic livestock supply and economy. The commenters stated the economic risk of an FMD outbreak to the U.S. livestock industry is too great to take any action that increases the risk to the domestic cattle herd. These commenters stated that a new economic analysis for animals and animal products should be prepared and made available to the public for review and comment.
The commenter is correct that an economic analysis is not required for risk evaluation notices. APHIS has determined that susceptible commodities imported from the Patagonia Region pose a very low risk of introducing FMD into the United States and that these products can be safely imported. This determination is based on the lack of FMD virus circulating in the Patagonia Region, the Argentine regulatory and industry safeguards that would likely arrest the spread of FMD should it be introduced into the region and prevent exports of infected commodities, and, APHIS' regulatory safeguards, including quarantine of live imported animals. As we explained above, we are confident that APHIS' regulatory safeguards will provide effective protection against the risks associated with the importation of ruminants or their products from the Patagonia Region of Argentina.
One commenter stated that even with a robust emergency management system in the United States, the mobility and demographics of susceptible livestock and products in the United States would allow for the probable spread of FMD to many States before it could be contained. The commenter further stated that the accidental introduction of FMD into the United States would cost producers, consumers, and governments billions of dollars in lost revenue, response overhead, increased retail costs, and long-term loss of consumer confidence.
While we agree with the commenter that the expected consequences of an FMD outbreak in the United States would be severe, the likelihood of such an outbreak occurring due to exposure of the domestic livestock population to FMD-susceptible animals and products imported from the Patagonia Region of Argentina is very low. Therefore, the overall risk of FMD to U.S. animal health from imports of these commodities is also very low.
The commenter stated that the United States has defended its decision to reject beef from Argentina citing general sanitary issues. The commenter stated that Argentina demanded that the U.S. market be opened to their exports but have not taken appropriate action to address their sanitary issues.
APHIS disagrees with the commenter. Our evaluation shows that Argentina, as discussed in the risk analysis, has taken the necessary action to address FMD issues.
Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in response to comments, we are recognizing the Patagonia Region of Argentina as free of FMD and rinderpest. The lists of regions recognized as free of these diseases can be found by visiting the APHIS Web site at
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781–7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection. The purpose of this information collection request is to continue the use of the electronic form FNS–674, titled “User Access Request Form.” This form will continue to allow access to current FNS systems, modify access or remove user access.
Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2014.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate
Comments may be sent to: Leo Wong, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 317, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Leo Wong at 703–605–4273 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Leo Wong at 703–605–1181.
The respondents are State agencies, who are located in the 50 states and Trust Territories, staff contractors and Federal employees. Respondents who require access to the FNS systems are estimated at 3,600 annually (includes Federal, State and private) however, only 2,700 will account for the total public burden, excluding Federal employees. FNS estimates that it will receive an average of 300 requests per month (15 per day). Of the 300, 70 percent (or 210) of the responses are State Agency users, 5 percent (or 15) are staff contractors and 25 percent (or 75) are Federal employees which is not included in the total number of responses. Annually, that results in 2,700 respondents (210 State Agency users per month + 15 staff contractors per month × 12 months).
Each respondent takes approximately 0.167 of an hour, or 10 minutes, to complete the required information on the online form.
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA Forest Service is preparing the revised land management plans (forest plans) for the Inyo Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. The agency will prepare a joint environmental impact statement (EIS) for these three revised plans. The revised forest plans will supersede existing forest plans previously approved by the responsible official on the Inyo National Forest in 1988, the Sequoia National Forest in 1988 and the Sierra National Forest in 1992. The existing forest plans have been amended several times since their approval, including the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The Giant Sequoia National Monument (Monument) Management Plan, which amends the land management plan for the Sequoia National Forest, will be incorporated as a subset of the Sequoia's revised forest plan. Provisions of the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement to the Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan, applicable to National Forest System lands outside of the Monument, will be addressed in the EIS for forest plan revision. The existing forest plans, as amended, remain in effect until the revised forest plans are approved. The plans will be revised under the 2012 Planning Rule and will provide for social, economic and ecological sustainability within Forest Service authority and the inherent capability of the plan area.
Comments concerning the proposed action in this notice will be most useful in the development of the draft revised forest plans and EIS if received by September 29, 2014. The draft EIS is expected in spring 2015. The final EIS is expected in spring 2016.
Please provide comments using the following Web site:
Mike Dietl, Plan Revision Team Leader,
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency. Inyo County is a designated cooperating agency in this plan revision effort.
The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for plan revision on each forest.
Ed Armenta, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest Service, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200, Bishop, CA 93514.
Kevin Elliott, Forest Supervisor, Sequoia National Forest, 1839 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA 93257.
Dean Gould, Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest Service, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611.
The purpose is to revise the forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests as guided by the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR part 219). According to the National Forest Management Act, forest plans are to be revised on a 10 to 15 year cycle. Current plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests were approved between 1988 and 1992 and are due for revisions. Responsible officials used science-based assessments and considered public and employee input to identify needed changes to existing plans. They have identified the following areas where changes are needed:
There is a need to update plan direction to: Support the long term sustainability of forest benefits to people and contributions to local economies, which come as a result of the many uses of National Forest System lands; to encourage the use of partnerships with private and public entities and tribal stewardship opportunities; and to improve communication and outreach to the public, including underrepresented populations.
There is a need to update plan direction to move toward resilience of forests to climate change and fire, ensuring that they provide benefits to people.
There is a need to modify plan components to maintain levels of forest product and biomass production that support an economically-viable forest products industry, and to encourage local hiring.
There is a need to include plan direction regarding tribal relations and uses to: Help tribes maintain their culture and connection to the land; support economic opportunities in tribal communities; incorporate traditional ecological knowledge; and collaborate with the agency to meet restoration goals.
There is a need to update plan direction to improve recreation facilities, settings, opportunities and access and their sustainability; and to improve and protect scenic character, which contributes to people's recreation experience and sense of place.
There is a need to proactively manage cultural resources to protect and improve the conditions of these resources and help connect people to the land.
There is a need to add plan direction to improve fire management to recognize climate change.
There is a need to modify wildfire management areas and associated plan direction to increase the area where fuel reduction treatments occur, while also increasing the opportunity to use fire as a restoration tool, and to modify plan direction to maintain or restore fire as an ecosystem process, especially in riparian areas.
There is a need to include plan direction that incorporates analyzing smoke tradeoffs to communities from prescribed fire or wildfire used to meet resource objectives and large, uncontrolled wildfire.
There is a need to add plan direction to improve resilience of ecosystems to climate change.
There is a need to modify plan direction to: Increase the rate and extent of the land area where vegetation is being restored, decreasing the threat of large, undesirable fires; to sustain and increase local capacity to restore vegetation and reduce fuels; to add and modify plan direction specific to ecological integrity of eastside ecosystems that occur on the Inyo National Forest and small portions of the Sequoia National Forest; and to include plan direction for old forest, early seral habitat and subalpine and alpine systems.
There is a need to modify plan direction for terrestrial ecosystems and fire, as described above, to increase the ability of forests to store and sequester carbon.
There is a need to modify plan direction for aquatic and riparian ecosystems to maintain or improve the resilience of these ecosystems to climate change, fire, air pollution and invasive species, and to manage meadows holistically across individual resource areas, such as hydrology, soils, wildlife and vegetation.
There is a need to identify in the plans watersheds that are a priority for restoration, and to modify plan direction to improve groundwater storage and to address water shortages and climate change in riparian systems.
There is a need to modify plan direction to improve ecological conditions for the California spotted owl and to restore and maintain greater sage-grouse habitat on the Inyo National Forest. There is a need to incorporate new information and conservation practices into plan direction to contribute to the recovery of federally-listed species (including candidates and proposed) and to streamline project planning.
There is a need to modify plan direction to prevent the establishment and spread of invasive species.
There is a need to incorporate lands acquired by the Inyo National Forest through the Nevada Enhancement Act into the forest plan.
There is a need to: Review existing plan direction for existing and recommended wilderness to determine if any updates are needed; to review existing plan direction for wild and scenic rivers to determine if any updates are needed; to include a management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail corridor and associated management direction; and to include management direction for national recreation trails.
The proposed action is to revise the existing forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, as amended. Plan revision creates a new plan for the entire plan area, whether the revised plan differs to a small or large extent from the prior forest plan. In this plan revision effort, plans will be
Existing direction that is carried forward into revised plans would be converted to 2012 Planning Rule language. This would result in some existing standards and guidelines being changed to other plan components. Plan components that are no longer needed because compliance is already required as a matter of law, regulation, or policy, or that conflict with current national policy would be removed. Plan components that no longer apply, set tasks that have been completed, or refer to timeframes that are now past would be removed.
Changes would be made to some standards and guidelines from the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). These standards and guidelines are referenced using SNFPA and the standard and guideline number (e.g., SNFPA 4). Specific changes are discussed in the appropriate sections below.
Current land allocations, management areas and management prescriptions would generally stay the same except as described in the sections below. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, management and/or geographic areas will replace what was previously known as land allocations, management areas and management prescriptions.
The Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and Pacific Southwest Research Station have reviewed and incorporated the latest climate change research and modeling from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program to deduce likely present and future impacts to the forests of the Sierra Nevada. Their results show a general increase in temperatures, resulting in longer fire seasons and less snowpack, which melts earlier in the year. Where appropriate, plan components would be adjusted to recognize considerations of climate change.
Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be included to support the long term sustainability of forest benefits to people and forest contributions to local and tribal economies, including multiple uses. This direction includes resilience and sustainability to climate change of ecosystems that provide benefits and multiple uses to people.
A section would be added to the plan that provides management direction for interpretation and education. This does not exist in the current forest plans. Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be included for communicating and outreaching to residents and visitors.
Partnerships with private, public and tribal entities would be encouraged in the plan and associated plan components would be developed.
Desired conditions would be added to ensure that predictable forest product yields support economic stability sufficient to maintain local industry infrastructure for use in vegetation restoration, and that forest products are produced in a sustainable manner, improving forest conditions and contributing to local community stability. Standards and guidelines would be added that address reforestation and the range of purposes for which timber harvest may occur, such as timber production, salvage and ecological restoration. Other plan content would be added that encourages the use of local forest products workforces and the use of tools such as stewardship contracts to improve the economic feasibility of vegetation management projects across large landscapes and social, economic and ecological sustainability.
A section would be added to the plan that provides management direction for tribal relations and uses. This does not currently exist in the forest plans. Desired conditions and other plan content would be included that incorporate traditional tribal ecological knowledge, cultural viewpoints and considerations in forest management; that emphasize working with tribes to develop and implement projects, through stewardship contracting and other mechanisms; and that recognize the value of incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into project development and implementation. Desired conditions and other plan content would be integrated throughout other parts of the plan to incorporate tribal considerations in resource management. Direction would be added to require communication and collaboration with tribal leadership during fire incident management.
Consideration would be given to defining and designating cultural management areas for sacred sites, areas of cultural and religious sensitivity, traditional cultural properties and significant concentrations of cultural properties.
The plan would be updated to reflect the guiding principles, goals and focus areas from the Forest Service National Framework for Sustainable Recreation. This includes updating or developing plan components to guide forest management in a way that sustainably:
• Connects people with their natural and cultural heritage;
• Promotes social and economic community well-being using a place-based model for recreation planning;
• Emphasizes working with partners and volunteers to help meet public needs and expectations, including the needs of youth and underserved communities;
• Provides a diverse range of quality natural and cultural recreation opportunities and settings;
• Restores and protects the natural, cultural and scenic environment, focusing on special places that are highly valued landscapes or sites;
• Promotes citizen stewardship through interpretive services and conservation education; and
• Emphasizes effective and adaptive communication in an ever-changing world.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes would be modified, as appropriate, to represent sustainable recreation settings that reflect current management or recreation activities and conditions and future use.
The Visual Management System (VMS) used in the existing forest plan would be converted to the Scenery Management System (SMS) resulting in scenic integrity objectives. The SMS supports a place-based planning approach that recognizes the value of both natural and cultural features in the landscape.
Desired conditions and other plan content for working with partners would be incorporated to demonstrate that they are integral to program of work planning and conducting sustainable recreation activities.
Plan components would be developed to focus agency efforts on each forest's distinctive recreation roles and contributions.
Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be added or updated that emphasize the role that the forest plays in connecting people to their cultural heritage, offering cultural resource-based recreation and tourism opportunities and sustaining treasured places.
Desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content would be added or updated that emphasize the importance of strategic partnerships to protect the sustainability of cultural resources and promote citizen stewardship.
Consideration would be given to defining and designating cultural management areas for sacred sites, areas of cultural and religious sensitivity, traditional cultural properties and significant concentrations of cultural properties.
The current management areas for wildland urban interface (WUI) defense and threat zones from the SNFPA would be changed to a risk-based protection zone approach, which would focus fuel reduction treatments on conditions that threaten communities and assets. These protection zones would be complemented by two new zones that cover the remaining adjacent National Forest System lands, where increased opportunities for managing wildfires for ecological benefits would occur. The use of fire as a restoration tool would be emphasized in inaccessible and steeper areas where mechanical fuel and restoration treatment would be difficult or is prohibited. Proposed modification of some vegetation and wildlife standards and guidelines aligned with these zones are intended to better manage the threat of wildfire impacts to communities and other at-risk natural resource values. As a risk-based approach, these zones change over time as fuels conditions change from restoration treatments and wildfires and as there are new or changed communities, assets, or natural resource values.
The four proposed zones are:
1. Community Wildfire Protection Zone: Conditions currently put communities and community assets at very high risk. This would replace the WUI defense zone. Emphasis would be placed on mechanical and hand treatments to yield desired fire behavior conducive to more effective fire suppression. Prescribed burning is also used, especially to maintain previously treated areas. The use of wildfire to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits is very limited.
2. General Wildfire Protection Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets and natural resource values at high risk of loss from wildfire. This would replace the WUI threat zone, but recognizes that fires from greater distances can threaten these areas, in part a result of climate change. This zone adds natural resource values, and the area is increased. Emphasis would be placed on mechanical and hand treatments to yield desired fire behavior conducive to more effective fire suppression and retention of desired conditions for natural resources. The use of wildfire to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits is limited.
3. Wildfire Restoration Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets, watersheds and natural resource values at moderate risk of loss from wildfire. Wildfire could be used to increase ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits when conditions allow. Strategically located mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning, where feasible, may be a necessary precursor to the reintroduction of wildfire to achieve desired conditions. Strategically located treatments increase the opportunity to manage wildfires to achieve desired conditions.
4. Wildfire Maintenance Zone: Conditions currently put communities, community assets, watersheds and natural resource values at low risk of loss from wildfire, and many natural resources would benefit from wildland fire. Due to low risk, wildfires are expected to be used as often as possible to maintain ecosystem resilience and provide ecological benefits when conditions allow. Mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning, where feasible, are used to complement wildfire to achieve desired conditions.
Desired conditions and SNFPA 1–11 would be modified to incorporate the four zone approach. In the Protection Zones, plan components would be geared toward safe firefighting and protecting assets (e.g., structures and powerlines) and natural resources. In the Restoration and Maintenance Zones, plan components would emphasize effects of fire on natural resources and would be geared toward desired conditions for ecological resilience and integrity. New plan components would emphasize fire behavior and the effects on resources (e.g., habitat or timber) in terms of severity (e.g., the number of trees killed).
Desired conditions, guidelines, standards and other plan content would be added to allow for improved coordination with air quality regulators and with communities and to provide for a transparent analysis and clear communication regarding smoke tradeoffs from prescribed fire or wildfire used to meet resource objectives and large, uncontrolled wildfire. Other plan content would be added to consider smoke impacts to downwind communities.
Within the Community and General Wildfire Protection Zones, to reflect the intent of the new planning rule, some standards and guidelines from the SNFPA would be converted to or replaced with desired conditions and other plan content.
Current general desired conditions would be replaced with specific, quantitative desired conditions based on ecological sustainability. Prescriptive elements on vegetation management (SNFPA 1–12 and 17–19) would be replaced with desired conditions and other plan content aimed at restoring ecological integrity and sustainability. Desired conditions would incorporate references to new science (e.g., General Technical Report 220 and 237) that better reflect resilience to fire, drought and climate change and heterogeneity beneficial to wildlife. Vegetation desired conditions would be made more specific by describing ecological outcomes as a numerical range. The importance of fire as an ecological process in vegetation types adapted to fire (e.g., mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine) would be included.
A strategy would be added that emphasizes planning and implementing projects at the landscape scale (5,000 to 100,000 acres) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of restoring ecological resilience to fire, drought and climate change. Locations and types of restoration treatments (e.g. thinning or controlled burning) would occur within these larger areas to influence changes in effects of wildfires.
Plan components and other plan content would be added or updated for all major eastside vegetation types on the Inyo National Forest, and small portions of the Sequoia National Forest, including sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, desert shrub, and eastside oak.
Desired conditions and other plan content would be added that recognize the importance of perennial grasses in eastside ecosystems and the role they play in resilience to non-native grass invasion and resilience to fire.
The existing old forest emphasis area land allocation and desired conditions from the SNFPA would be removed because the desired conditions are general and lack specific information on desired levels of large and old trees. Forest-wide desired conditions for old forest would be added that describe desired large tree densities and the proportion of the landscape containing old forest characteristics.
Desired conditions would be added to recognize complex early seral habitat as
Desired conditions and other plan content would be added to address ecological sustainability of subalpine and alpine ecosystems omitted in earlier plans. This includes components to address threats to high elevation white pines from blister rust and bark beetle.
Desired conditions would be added for blue oak woodlands to support existing standards and guidelines from the SNFPA.
Plan components would be added and modified to better restore, maintain and increase the resilience of aquatic and riparian ecosystems to climate change, fire, ozone and nitrogen depositions.
The term riparian conservation objective (RCO) would be dropped to avoid confusion with the 2012 Planning Rule plan component called objectives. The spirit and intent of the original RCOs would remain in other plan components. The standards and guidelines organized under RCOs would be mostly retained and reorganized. More specifically, SNFPA 91 would be modified to include the definition of riparian conservation areas, and by removing the need for a specific RCO analysis. SNFPA 92 and 93 would be removed, because they concern the RCO system and their intent is captured elsewhere in plan components and existing law.
SNFPA 109 and 111 would be replaced with other plan content to improve resilience of riparian ecosystems to fire, drought and climate change. This change would allow for increased flexibility with prescribed fire and mechanical treatment and/or hand treatments in riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges where appropriate. Although the new language would emphasize more flexibility to treat in riparian areas, activities would need to be designed considering desired conditions, ensure the protection of at-risk species, and meet all necessary protection measures for water and soil.
Desired conditions would be updated for meadows to reflect an integration of vegetation, soils, hydrology and wildlife conditions. Guidelines would be added to address the ecological integrity of meadows and their connection to groundwater. Guidelines currently in place for the Inyo National Forest have replaced SNFPA 120 and 121 to further allow for an integrated ecological approach to meadow management on that forest.
New guidelines would be included to protect the spring environment and to maintain and restore native species and the ecological integrity of these systems.
The contribution of the national forests to water quantity and quality in California would be recognized in the plans. Plan components would be added to address the effect of climate change and drought on water quantity.
Management direction would be added to ensure compliance with new proposed groundwater directives and to further address water shortages and climate change in riparian systems.
SNFPA 106 would be modified to include language that better evaluates diversion of water on National Forest System land, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing projects. The new language would promote collaboration with other entities involved in the hydropower relicensing process and other water use negotiations. These changes address public feedback and the need to account for climate change and threats to water quality. The changes would also address trends with drought.
The Watershed Condition Framework would continue to move forward. Priority watersheds have been identified and these would continue to be a focus for improving water quality, watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystem conditions.
SNFPA 53, 54, 98 and 114 which are specifically related to the three newly listed federal threatened and endangered amphibian species (Yosemite toad, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog) would be retained but would incorporate clarifications resulting from consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Actions listed in recovery plans and conservation strategies would be considered in developing plan components that could contribute to the recovery of federally-listed species.
Existing management areas and direction for California spotted owl and northern goshawk protected activity centers and spotted owl home range core areas would be retained with clarifications and alignment of plan components. No substantive changes would be made with the following exceptions:
• Updating and clarifying the desired conditions and other plan components for these areas based on information from the California spotted owl new interim guidelines and conservation assessment, when they are available.
• Changing some standards and guidelines within the Community Wildfire Protection Zone and the General Wildfire Protection Zone to better balance the need to provide key habitat with managing the threat of wildfire impacts to communities and other values at risk. This would include minor changes to SNFPA 73 and converting and clarifying direction related to limited operating periods in SNFPA 75, 76 and 77 to guidelines.
• Adding plan content and updating and clarifying standards and guidelines to include opportunities for adaptive management related to the amount of protected activity centers that can be treated mechanically (SNFPA 80 and 81) and with prescribed burning (SNFPA 78 and 79).
Direction for the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SNFPA 90) and fisher den sites (SNFPA 85–87) would be retained with clarifications and alignment of plan components. No substantive changes would be made, pending completion of the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Strategy. These management areas and associated direction would be updated or changed considering information from the conservation strategy. Other plan components in other resource areas would be aligned as needed.
Direction for Bi-State sage-grouse management from the Inyo National Forest Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policy, portions of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment and strategies from the Rocky Mountain Research Station-led conservation strategy on habitat restoration and fire resilience would be added. Plan components and other plan content would be added to conserve sage-grouse habitat.
A list of preliminary at-risk species was identified in each forest's assessment report. During the analysis of alternatives, plan components related to ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity will be examined to determine if direction for ecological integrity and ecosystem diversity or for special habitats is sufficient or if additional, species-specific plan components are needed for federally-recognized
The existing standards and guidelines specific to noxious weed management (SNFPA 36–49) would be clarified and reorganized into desired conditions, guidelines and other plan content that address terrestrial and aquatic invasive species, including noxious plants.
Plan components with management direction for lands acquired by the Inyo National Forest through the Nevada Enhancement Act would be added.
Wilderness: The 15,110 acres of the Moses Recommended Wilderness on the Sequoia National Forest, recommended in the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan, would continue to be managed as recommended wilderness until such time as Congress designates it as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. There may be new recommendations that result from the wilderness evaluations currently underway.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: The 66 miles of the San Joaquin, South Fork San Joaquin, North Fork San Joaquin and Middle Fork San Joaquin River segments that the Sierra National Forest found suitable in previous planning efforts would continue to be managed as suitable and recommended wild and scenic river segments until such time as Congress designates them as additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. One mile of the south Fork Kern River segment that the Sequoia National Forest found suitable in previous planning efforts will continue to be managed as a suitable and recommended wild and scenic river until such time as Congress designates it as an addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There may be new recommendations that result from the wild and scenic river evaluations currently underway. For the two newly designated wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo National Forest, the revised forest plan would include direction that is applicable to all wild and scenic rivers on the forest and would identify the process and timeline for finishing comprehensive river management plans and developing a final boundary.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT): The PCT corridor would be identified as a management area and plan components would be added to protect the recreation experience and scenery resources along the PCT. Identification of the PCT corridor and associated direction does not currently exist in forest plans.
National Recreation Trails: Desired conditions, standards, guidelines and other plan content would be added to protect the recreation experience and scenery resources along the national recreation trails on each forest. There are three national recreation trails on the Inyo National Forest, two on the Sequoia National Forest outside the Giant Sequoia National Monument and five on the Sierra National Forest. This direction does not currently exist in forest plans.
Other Designated Areas: Other designated areas would continue to be managed for their designations under current management direction. No new designation areas are being recommended at this time.
A monitoring program will be developed that meets the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule and informs evaluation the effectiveness of forest plans. The monitoring program consists of monitoring questions and associated indicators that address the following eight items: (1) The status of select watershed conditions; (2) the status of select ecological conditions, including key characteristics, of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; (3) the status of focal species, selected to assess integrity of ecological systems and effects of management on ecological conditions; (4) the status of a select set of ecological conditions that contribute to the recovery of federally-listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species and maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern; (5) the status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction and progress toward meeting recreation objectives; (6) measurable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors that may be affecting the plan area; (7) progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan; and (8) the effects of each timber management system to determine that they do not substantially and permanently impair the productivity of the land. Additionally, the monitoring program may include other monitoring questions and indicators that do not address these eight items but which inform effectiveness of the plan. Monitoring programs will be designed within the financial and technical capabilities of the forests. Capability will be expanded by coordinating with partners and through the broader regional strategy currently under development.
As part of plan revision, the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests will also:
• Identify the suitability of areas for the appropriate integration of resource management and uses, including identifying lands not suitable for timber production;
• Identify the maximum quantity of timber that may be removed from the plan area;
• Coordinate with the Regional Forester to identify the species of conservation concern for the plan area;
• Describe the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape;
• Contain information reflecting proposed and possible actions that may occur on the plan area during the life of the plan;
• Consider including optional content, such as potential management approaches or strategies and partnership opportunities or coordination activities.
The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests are preparing an EIS to revise their current forest plans. The EIS process will inform each Forest Supervisor's decision about which alternative best meets the need for quality land management under the 2012 Planning Rule and the sustainable multiple-use management concept, as required by the National Forest Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. This concept seeks to meet the diverse needs of people while protecting forest resources.
Each Forest Supervisor will be signing a Record of Decision. Having one EIS is expected to help the agency gain efficiencies and complete plan revision within a reasonable timeframe and budget. The three forests share some landscapes, issues and stakeholders. Consolidating under one EIS will help streamline the process for some stakeholders and helps facilitate a landscape-level approach to plan revision.
The revised forest plans will describe the strategic intent of managing the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests for the next 10 to 15 years. The revised forest plans will identify management and/or geographic areas and use five plan components to guide future project and activity decision making: Desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines and suitability of lands. Each revised plan will include other required content, such as a monitoring program. Responsible officials will determine whether to make
This decision will not authorize project-level activities on the three forests. The authorization of project-level activities on each forest occurs through subsequent project-specific decision making. The designation of routes, trails and areas for motorized vehicle travel is not considered during plan revision but addressed in separate analysis processes on each forest. Certain issues (e.g., hunting regulations), although important, are beyond the authority or control of the three forests and will not be considered. In addition, some decisions and determinations, such as wild and scenic river suitability determinations, may not be undertaken at this time but will be addressed in separate processes.
The Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forest plan revision team has provided multiple ways for the public, other agencies and tribes to contribute ideas about how current forest plans need to change or be improved. Public involvement began in earnest in 2012. Formal and informal meetings, letters, emails, phone calls, newspaper announcements and postings to the Pacific Southwest Region and forest Web sites were used to share and gather information and encourage participation. Plan revision team members gave presentations, went to the field and met with individuals and groups. Information collected from the public was used to identify needed changes in the current forest plans and desired conditions.
The forests will continue regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal nations on a government-to-government basis to address issues that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.
The forests will continue to collaborate with interested members of the public, as well as federal and state agencies, local governments and other organizations.
Preparation of the revised forest plans for the Inyo, Sequoia and Sierra National Forests began with the publication of the Notice of Initiation in the
This notice of intent initiates the 30-day scoping process which guides the development of the EIS. The purpose of this process is to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. Public meetings and tribal forums to gather input on the proposed action will be held in September 2014. Additional materials, as well as the dates, times and locations of these meetings can be found at
The decisions to approve the revised forest plans will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR Part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to a plan revision during the opportunities provided for public comment during the planning process.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
Forest Service administrative review procedures at 36 CFR parts 218 and 219 require agency officials to publish legal notices in newspapers of record for certain opportunities to comment and opportunities to file pre-decisional objections. Forest Service officials in the Eastern Region will publish those legal notices in the newspapers listed in the
Use of these newspapers for purposes of publishing legal notice of opportunities to comment on proposals subject under 36 CFR part 218 and 36 CFR part 219, and notices of the opportunity to object under 36 CFR part 218 and 36 CFR part 219 shall begin the first day after the date of this publication.
Patricia Rowell; Appeals Assistant, 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI—414–297–3439
Responsible Officials in the Eastern Region will publish legal notice regarding proposed land management plans as required under 36 CFR 219.16 and legal notice regarding an opportunity to comment on proposed projects as required under 36 CFR 218.24 in the newspapers that are listed in this section by Forest Service administrative unit. Additionally, Responsible Officials in the Eastern Region will publish legal notice of the opportunity to object to a proposed project under 36 CFR part 218 or to object to a land management plan developed, amended, or revised under 36 CFR part 219 in the legal notice section of the following newspapers. Additional notice regarding an opportunity to comment or object under the above mentioned regulations may be provided in other newspapers not listed below at the sole discretion of the Responsible Official. Legal notice published in a newspaper of record of an opportunity to object is in addition to direct notice to those who have requested it and to those who have participated in planning for the project or land management plan proposal.
The timeframe for comment on a proposed action shall be based on the
Affecting National Forest System lands in the Eastern Region, in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin,
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) allows scientists to implant archival tags in, or affix archival tags to, selected Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfish). Archival tags collect location, temperature, and water depth data that is useful for scientists researching the movements and behavior of individual fish. It is often necessary to retrieve the tags in order to collect the data. Therefore, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) exempts persons catching tagged fish from certain otherwise applicable regulations at 50 CFR 635 (e.g., immediate release of the fish, minimum size, prohibited species, retention limits). These participants must notify NOAA, return the archival tag or make it available to NOAA personnel, and provide information about the location and method of capture if they harvest a fish that has an archival tag. The information obtained is used by NOAA for international and domestic fisheries policy and regulations.
Scientists not employed by NOAA must obtain NOAA authorization before affixing or implanting archival tags and submit subsequent reports about the tagging of fish. NOAA needs that information to evaluate the effectiveness of archival tag programs, to assess the likely impact of regulatory allowances for tag recovery, and to ensure that the research does not produce excessive mortality.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collects information about fishing expenses in the American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) boat-based reef fish, bottomfish, and pelagics fisheries with which to conduct economic analyses that will improve fishery management in those fisheries; satisfy NMFS' legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; and quantify achievement of the performances measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. An example of these performance measures: the economic data collected will allow quantitative assessment of the fisheries sector's social and economic contribution, linkages and impacts of the fisheries sector to the overall economy through Input-output (I–O) models analyses. Results from I–O analyses will not only provide indicators of social-economic benefits of the marine ecosystem, a performance measure in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans, but also be used to assess how fishermen and economy will be impacted by and respond to regulations likely to be considered by fishery managers. These data are collected in conjunction with catch and effort data already being collected in this fishery as part of its creel survey program.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 83, requesting subzone status for the facility of General Electric Company located in Decatur, Alabama. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–
The proposed subzone (128 acres) is located at 2328 Point Mallard Drive in Decatur. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 83. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 8, 2014. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 23, 2014.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
On April 28, 2014, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.L.C. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 183B, in Austin, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On April 22, 2014, the Ports of Indiana, grantee of FTZ 177, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Best Chair, Inc. d/b/a Best Home Furnishings, in Ferdinand, Cannelton, and Paoli, Indiana.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
The purpose of this notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the proposed Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Stockpile Annual Materials Plan. The role of the Market Impact Committee is to advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals involving the stockpile and related material research and development projects. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
To be considered, written comments must be received by September 29, 2014.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Susan Kramer, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230, fax: (202) 482–5650 (Attn: Susan Kramer), email:
Susan Kramer, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482–0117, fax: (202) 482–5650 (Attn: Susan Kramer), email:
Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Revision Act of 1979, as amended (the Stock Piling Act) (50 U.S.C. 98,
Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h–1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile. . . .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the U.S. Government against avoidable loss.
The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials stored in or of interest to the National Defense Stockpile Manager.
As the National Defense Stockpile Manager, the DLA must produce an Annual Materials Plan proposing the maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, or sold by the DLA in a particular fiscal year. In Attachment 1, the DLA lists the quantities and type of activity (potential acquisition, potential disposal, or potential upgrade) associated with each material in its proposed FY 2016 Annual Materials Plan (“AMP”). The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not acquisition, disposal, upgrade, or sales target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, or sold in a particular fiscal year by the DLA, as noted. The quantity of each material that will actually be acquired or offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the acquisition or offering, as well as on the quantity of each material approved for acquisition, disposal, or upgrade by Congress.
The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact associated with the proposed FY 2016 AMP as enumerated in Attachment 1. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the quantities associated with the proposed FY 2016 AMP. All comments must be submitted to the addresses indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through email must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line.
The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on September 29, 2014. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.
The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2015.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration.
Request for Nominations; Amendment.
This notice amends the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration Request for Nominations for the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) of February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10099) to revise the eligibility criteria to permit federally-registered lobbyists to apply for membership on the ITACs. The Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative no longer maintain an eligibility restriction prohibiting federally-registered lobbyists from applying for appointment on the ITACs in light of a recent policy clarification that the eligibility restriction does not apply to advisory committee members who serve in a representative capacity. The Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) and the United States Trade Representative (the USTR) will now consider nominations of federally-registered lobbyists for appointment on the 16 ITACs. All other eligibility criteria continue to apply. The full notice is republished in its entirety below for convenience.
In February 2014, the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) and the United States Trade Representative (the USTR) renewed the charters of the 16 Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) and the Committee of Chairs of the ITACs for a four-year term to expire on February 14, 2018. The ITACs provide detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary and the USTR regarding trade barriers, negotiation of trade agreements, and implementation of existing trade agreements affecting industry sectors; and perform other advisory functions relevant to U.S. trade policy matters as may be requested by the Secretary and the USTR or their designees.
There are currently opportunities for membership on each ITAC. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies and those that occur throughout the remainder of the charter term, which expires on February 14, 2018.
Appointments will be made on a rolling basis. For that reason, nominations will be accepted through February 14, 2018.
Submit nominations to Ingrid V. Mitchem, Director, Industry Trade Advisory Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230.
Ingrid V. Mitchem, Director, Industry Trade Advisory Center, (202) 482–3268.
Recruitment information also is available on the International Trade Administration Web site at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) and section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), the Secretary and the USTR have renewed the charters of 16 ITACs and the Committee of Chairs of the ITACs. The Secretary and the USTR welcome nominations for the ITACs listed below:
Industry Trade Advisory Committees on:
Section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), directed the establishment of a private-sector trade advisory system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. Section 135(a)(1) directs the President to:
(A) Negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into a trade agreement under [Subchapter I of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2111–2241) and section 2103 of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803)];
(B) The operation of any trade agreement once entered into, including preparation for dispute settlement panel proceedings to which the United States is a party; and
(C) Other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States . . .”
(A) Consult with interested private organizations; and
(B) Take into account such factors as—
(i) Patterns of actual and potential competition between United States industry and agriculture and foreign enterprise in international trade,
(ii) The character of the nontariff barriers and other distortions affecting such competition,
(iii) The necessity for reasonable limits on the number of such advisory committees,
(iv) The necessity that each committee be reasonably limited in size, and
(v) In the case of each sectoral committee, that the product lines covered by each committee be reasonably related.”
The duties of the ITACs are to provide the President, through the Secretary and the USTR, with detailed policy and technical advice, information, and recommendations regarding trade barriers, negotiation of trade agreements, and implementation of existing trade agreements affecting industry sectors; and perform other advisory functions relevant to U.S. trade policy matters as may be requested by the Secretary and the USTR or their designees. The ITACs provide nonpartisan, industry input in the development of trade policy objectives. The ITACs' efforts have assisted the United States in putting forward unified positions when it negotiates trade agreements.
The ITACs address market-access problems; barriers to trade; tariff levels; discriminatory foreign procurement practices; and information, marketing, and advocacy needs of their industry sector. Thirteen ITACs provide advice and information on issues that affect specific sectors of U.S. industry. Three ITACs focus on cross-cutting, functional issues that affect all industry sectors: Customs matters and trade facilitation (ITAC 14); intellectual property rights (ITAC 15); and standards and technical trade barriers (ITAC 16). In addition to members appointed exclusively to these three ITACs, ITACs 1–13 each may select a member to represent their ITAC as a non-voting member on each of these three cross-cutting ITACs so that a broad range of industry perspectives is represented. Other trade policy issues, e.g., government procurement, subsidies, etc., may be addressed in
Each ITAC meets an average of six times a year in Washington, DC. Some ITACS meet more often depending on the work of a particular committee.
Each Committee consists of members with experience relevant to the industry sector for ITACs 1 through 13 or the subject area for ITACs 14 through 16. The members serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of a sponsoring U.S. entity or U.S. organization and the entity's or organization's subsector (if applicable) on trade matters. In selecting members, Commerce and USTR also consider the nominee's ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee, including knowledge and expertise of the industry and of trade matters relevant to the work of the Committee, and ensuring that the Committee is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size. Because members serve in a representative capacity, they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees. Members serve at the discretion of the Secretary and the USTR.
Members serve without compensation and are responsible for all expenses incurred to attend the meetings. ITAC members are appointed jointly by the Secretary and the USTR. Each ITAC elects a chairperson from the membership of the ITAC, and that chairperson serves on the Committee of Chairs of the ITACs.
Appointments are made following the re-chartering of each ITAC and periodically throughout the four-year charter term. Appointments expire at the end of the ITACs' charter terms, in this case, on February 14, 2018.
Appointments to all ITACs are made without regard to political affiliation.
The following eligibility requirements must be met:
1. The applicant must be a U.S. citizen;
2. The applicant must not be a full-time employee of a U.S. governmental entity;
3. The applicant must not be registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;
4. The applicant must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance; and
5. The applicant must represent either:
a. A U.S. entity that is directly engaged in the import or export of goods or services or that provides services in direct support of the international trading activities of other entities; or
b. A U.S. organization that: Trades internationally; represents members that trade internationally; or, consistent with the needs of a Committee as determined by the Secretary and the USTR, represents members who have a demonstrated interest in international trade.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. entity” is a for-profit firm engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities that is incorporated in the United States (or an unincorporated U.S. firm with its principal place of business in the United States) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by other U.S. entities. An entity is not a U.S. entity if 50 percent plus one share of its stock (if a corporation, or a similar ownership interest of an unincorporated entity) is known to be controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens or non-U.S. entities.
For eligibility purposes, a “U.S. organization” is an organization, including trade associations, labor unions and organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), established under the laws of the United States, that is controlled by U.S. citizens, by another U.S. organization (or organizations), or by a U.S. entity (or entities), as determined based on its board of directors (or comparable governing body), membership, and funding sources, as applicable. To qualify as a U.S. organization, more than 50 percent of the board of directors (or comparable governing body) and more than 50 percent of the membership of the organization to be represented must be U.S. citizens, U.S. organizations, or
If a nominee is to represent an entity or organization known to have 10 percent or greater non-U.S. ownership of its shares or equity, non-U.S. board members, non-U.S. membership, or non-U.S. funding sources, as applicable, the nominee must certify in its statement affirming its eligibility that this non-U.S. interest does not constitute control and will not adversely affect his or her ability to serve as a trade advisor to the United States.
Historically, the Secretary and the USTR have appointed a representative of the public health or health care community to each of ITACs 3 and 15, and an environmental representative to each of ITACs 3 and 7. The Secretary and the USTR will continue to consider nominations for representatives of such viewpoints to those ITACs.
In order to be considered for ITAC membership, a nominee should submit:
(1) Name, title, and relevant contact information of the individual requesting consideration;
(2) The ITAC for which the individual is applying for appointment;
(3) A sponsor letter on the entity's or organization's letterhead containing a brief description of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the ITAC;
(4) The applicant's personal resume demonstrating knowledge of international trade issues;
(5) An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all ITAC eligibility requirements; and
(6) Information regarding the sponsoring entity, including the control of the entity or organization to be represented and the entity's or organization's size and ownership, product or service line, and trade activities.
Submit applications to Ingrid V. Mitchem, Director, Industry Trade Advisory Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230.
Additional requirements exist for nominations of consultants and legal advisors. The specific requirements will vary depending on the nature of the entity or organization and interests to be represented. Interested consultants and legal advisors should contact the Industry Trade Advisory Center or consult the International Trade Administration Web site at:
Applicants that meet the eligibility criteria will be considered for membership based on the following criteria: The applicant's ability to represent the sponsoring U.S. entity's or U.S. organization's and the entity's or organization's subsector's (if applicable) interests on trade matters; the applicant's ability to carry out the objectives of the particular ITAC (including knowledge and expertise of the industry and of trade matters relevant to the work of the ITAC); and whether the applicant's participation would ensure that the ITAC is balanced in terms of points of view, demographics, geography, and entity or organization size.
This notice is issued pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., app. 2), 19 U.S.C. 2155, and 41 CFR part 102–3 relating to advisory committees.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, Inc. (Foundation). If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicants, with certain conditions, to collect and retain limited numbers of specimens that would otherwise be prohibited from possession and retention in South Atlantic Federal waters. This study is intended to characterize catch and discard mortality within the South Atlantic commercial hook-and-line component of the snapper-grouper fishery.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments on the application, identified by “RIN 0648–XD446”, by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.
Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; email:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The applicant proposes research as part of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Program, which is intended to benefit the U.S. fishing industry through the collection of fundamental fisheries information. Resource collection efforts support the development and evaluation of fisheries management and regulatory options.
The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities otherwise prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622 implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The applicant requires authorization to collect limited numbers of snapper-grouper and other marine resources for scientific research activities during a 24-month period beginning October 2014, where harvest and possession is otherwise restricted or prohibited by regulations. The EFP would exempt Foundation personnel from fishery regulations such as bag limits, size limits, closures, and seasonal restrictions as specified in 50 CFR part 622, subparts A and I, for snapper-grouper in the South Atlantic. Specimens would be collected from Federal waters off the east coast of Florida and Federal waters off the coasts of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Sampling would occur during normal fishing operations of the commercial hook-and-line component of the snapper-grouper fishery. Only vessels that possess a valid Federal commercial South Atlantic unlimited snapper-grouper permit would participate in the research. The EFP
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. The limited sampling program and associated sampling methodology listed in the EFP is not expected to impact the fishery stocks; the estimated 500 fish to be retained in the 24-month period represents a small fraction of the average annual landings. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS will prohibit the possession of Nassau or goliath grouper, and require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of fishing or scientific research activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water. All Foundation-associated personnel who conduct onboard sampling activities have undergone formal sea turtle handling training through NMFS, and are considered NMFS-designated agents while conducting work under the identified Cooperative Agreements.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that the EFP is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (NPFMC) Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Plan Team (CPT) in Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held September 15–18, 2014. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., each day.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA.
Diana Stram, telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The Plan Team will review and make final 2014/15 recommendations on specifications (Over Fishing Levels (OFLs) and Acceptable Biological Catch (ABCs) for 7 BSAI crab stocks as well as review developing stock assessment models, and make recommendations for the next assessment cycle.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified 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.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 15, 2014 at 8 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott/Boston Logan Airport, 225 McClellan Highway, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 569–5250.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet to review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and develop overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Atlantic sea scallops for fishing years 2015–16. They will review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Groundfish PDT and
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public outreach meeting on the Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP).
The meeting will be held on September 15, 2014, from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the School of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Washington, 1122 NE Boat Street, Room 203, Seattle, WA.
Diana Evans, Council staff, telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The Council is considering whether to prioritize time and resources to develop a Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan. The Council is interested in hearing from local residents and communities, as well as agencies, organizations and the general public, about the objectives and structure of the FEP, prior to decision-making. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to present their concerns and suggestions as the Council proceeds with this effort. The Council is seeking the following input from stakeholders: (1) What should be the objectives of the Bering Sea FEP? What questions should the FEP answer? (2) What kind of actions should be considered in the FEP? Should the FEP provide specific or general guidance for fishery management? (for example, strategies to respond to climate change, preserve subsistence fishing and hunting resources, maintain healthy populations of top level predators, etc.) (3) Would the FEP provide added value over existing Council documents, and if so, how? More information is posted at
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Ecosystem Committee will meet in Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held on September 16, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, National Marine Mammal Laboratory conference room, Room 2039, Seattle, WA.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The Committee will discuss the following issues: (1) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan; (2) Ecosystem vision statement action plan; (3) EFH 5-year review; and (4) Updates.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version is posted at
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.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
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 Recreational Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 8 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The items of discussion on the agenda are: Discussion of Amendment 18, A18, (fleet diversity and accumulation limits) in regards to draft inshore/offshore alternatives with respect to fleet diversity and Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod. The panel will also discuss the development of Advisory Panel (AP) recommendations. If time permits, also on the agenda is Framework Adjustment 53, (specifications and management measures) with regard to specifications for groundfish stocks (GOM cod and haddock; GOM and Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder; pollock; GB yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock). Additionally, Management Measures (expansion of the GOM cod inshore spawning closure, roll-over provision for specifications, and other measures) are on the agenda. The AP will also be developing AP Recommendations. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) announces that the second meeting of its Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee will be held on September 15, 2014, at the Council office in Honolulu, HI.
The Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee meeting will be held on September 15, 2014, between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.
The Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee meeting will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522–8220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522–8220.
The agenda is as follows:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), 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; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Advisory Panel 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 Tuesday, September 16, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The items of discussion on the agenda are: Discussion of Amendment 18, A18, (fleet diversity and accumulation limits) in regards to draft inshore/offshore alternatives with respect to fleet diversity and Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and discuss other measures in A18. Also, the development of Advisory Panel (AP) recommendations. If time permits, also on the agenda is Framework Adjustment 53, (specifications and management measures) with regard to specifications for groundfish stocks (GOM cod and haddock; GOM and Georges Bank (GB) winter flounder; pollock; GB yellowtail flounder, cod and haddock). Additionally, Management Measures (windowpane flounder sub-annual catch limit (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs), expansion of the GOM cod inshore spawning closure, roll-over provision for specifications, and other measures) are on the agenda, time permitting. They will also be developing AP recommendations. The committee will discuss other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Committee (CLOSED SESSION); Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; Advisory Panel Selection Committee; Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Committee; Protected Resources Committee; Golden Crab Committee; Information and Education Committee; Data Collection Committee; Executive Finance Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; a joint committee meeting of the Dolphin Wahoo Committee and Snapper Grouper Committee; King & Spanish Mackerel Committee; Habitat Committee; Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will take action as necessary. The Council will also hold an informal public question and answer session regarding agenda items and a formal public comment session. See
The meetings will be held from 9 a.m. on Monday, September 15, 2014 until 3:15 p.m. on Friday, September 19, 2014.
The meetings will be held at the Charleston Marriott Hotel, 170 Lockwood Boulevard, Charleston, SC 29403; telephone: (800) 968–3569 or (843) 723–3000; fax: (843) 723–0276.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 571–4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC–10; fax: (843) 769–4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
Review the SSC applications and develop recommendations for appointments/reappointments.
1. SEDAR activities update.
2. Provide guidance to SEDAR Steering Committee members.
Discuss the membership structure of the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and develop Committee recommendations.
1. Receive a presentation on Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan.
2. Discuss shark interactions with South Atlantic fisheries and provide guidance to staff.
1. Receive a report on the Final Determination for Coral listing, and update on American Eel status review and an update on Atlantic Sturgeon Stock Status.
2. Discuss the future role and structure of the Committee and take other Committee actions as appropriate.
1. Receive an update on the status of commercial catch versus annual catch limit (ACL) for golden crab.
2. Receive a report on public hearing comments and provide guidance to staff.
3. Review and discuss the Generic Accountability Measures and Dolphin Allocation Amendment and revise as appropriate.
Receive a report from the Information and Education Advisory Panel and a summary of the Council-hosted Science Communication Workshop.
1. Receive an update on the status of the Joint Gulf and South Atlantic Council Generic Dealer Amendment.
2. Review background and receive an update on the status of implementation of the Electronic Technology (Data Collection and Monitoring) Implementation Plan; take Committee action as appropriate.
3. Receive a presentation on the status of work in the Northeast related to bycatch reporting and take Committee action as appropriate.
4. Receive an update on the status of an implementation plan for commercial logbook electronic reporting, provide staff guidance on options, receive a demonstration of the system developed by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program, and receive an update on the status of the Logbook Pilot Program from NOAA Fisheries.
5. Review the Joint South Atlantic and Gulf Council Generic Charterboat Reporting Amendment, receive an overview of the Gulf Council's actions, status, and next steps, a report on the Technical Committee meeting, and take action as appropriate.
1. Receive updates on the status of the Calendar Year 2014 budget expenditures.
2. Address the Council Follow-up and priorities.
3. Receive an update on the Joint South Florida Committee.
4. Receive an overview of proposed Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act bills and address other issues as appropriate.
1. Receive and discuss the status of commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) with an update on the 2014 Red Snapper Season. The committee will take action as appropriate.
2. Receive an update on the status of Snapper Grouper amendments under formal Secretarial review.
3. Receive an update on the 2014 golden tilefish commercial longline landings and overages.
4. Discuss preparation and provide staff guidance for the October 2014 Council Visioning Workshop.
5. Review Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 16 relative to removal of the current black sea bass pot seasonal closure, modify the document as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.
6. Receive an update on Snapper Grouper Amendment 22 addressing the use of tags to track recreational harvest, discuss and provide guidance to staff.
7. Receive an overview of changes to Snapper Grouper Amendment 29 addressing Only Reliable Catch Stocks (ORCS) and management measures for gray triggerfish; modify the amendment as appropriate and make recommendations to approve the amendment for formal Secretarial review.
8. Review public hearing comments for Snapper Grouper Amendment 32 addressing blueline tilefish; modify the amendment as appropriate and provide recommendation to approve for formal Secretarial review.
9. Request an extension of the Emergency Rule for blueline tilefish.
10. Review Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 20 addressing snowy grouper; modify the document as appropriate, and provide recommendation to approve for formal Secretarial review.
11. Receive an overview of public scoping comments received for Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 22 addressing measures for gag and wreckfish, modify the amendment, provide guidance to staff, and recommend approval for public hearings.
12. Review the Snapper Grouper Amendment 36 scoping comments addressing the use of Special Management Zones for protection of spawning areas/aggregations, modify the amendment as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.
13. Review the Snapper Grouper Amendment 35 scoping comments addressing the removal of four species from the Snapper Grouper Management Complex, modify the amendment as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.
14. Discuss options for the commercial golden tilefish longline endorsement issue and provide guidance to staff.
There will be an informal public question and answer session with the NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council Chairman on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
1. Receive and discuss the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs for dolphin and wahoo.
2. Receive a presentation on Operator Permits from NOAA Fisheries.
3. Review public hearing comments for Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 33 regarding the issue of transport of fillets from Bahamian waters into United States waters, modify the amendments as appropriate and provide recommendations for approval for formal Secretarial review.
4. Review and discuss the Generic Accountability Measures and Dolphin Allocation Amendment, modify as appropriate, and provide guidance to staff.
1. Receive an update on the status of commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs for Atlantic Group king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia.
2. Receive an update on the status of amendments under Formal Review.
3. Review the public hearing comments received for Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Framework Amendment 2 addressing Spanish Mackerel trip limits, modify the document as appropriate, and provide recommendations for approval for formal Secretarial review.
4. Receive an overview of a white paper on CMP Amendment 26 addressing separating permits for king mackerel and Spanish mackerel into separate jurisdictions and provide directions to staff.
1. Receive an update on the status of Coral Amendment 8, the Coral grant, the Council's Habitat Policy statements, and take action as appropriate.
1. Receive an update on the status of work on the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, a presentation on potential projects/collaborations, an update on Ecosystem-Based management activities, and take Committee action as appropriate.
A formal public comment session will be held on Thursday, September 18, 2014, beginning at 4:00 p.m. Public comment will be accepted on the following: Snapper Grouper Amendment 29 (ORCS and gray triggerfish); Snapper Grouper Amendment 32 (blueline tilefish); Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 20 (snowy grouper); Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7/Snapper Grouper Amendment 33 (fillets from The Bahamas); and Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 2 (Spanish mackerel). Following comment on these amendments, public comment will be accepted regarding any other items on the Council agenda. The amount of time
8:30 a.m.–8:45 a.m.: Call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, approve the June 2014 minutes, and make presentations.
8:45 a.m.–9:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee and is scheduled to either approve or disapprove the following for amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan for formal Secretarial review: Amendment 29, Amendment 32, and Regulatory Amendment 20. The Council will also consider approving or disapproving Regulatory Amendment 22 for public hearings, consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
9:15–9:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Joint Dolphin Wahoo and Snapper Grouper Committees and approve or disapprove Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 7 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 33 (fillets from The Bahamas) for formal Secretarial review. The Council will consider other Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the King and Spanish Mackerel Committee and is scheduled to approve or disapprove Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 2 for formal submission to the Secretary. The Council will consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
9:45 a.m.–10 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Habitat Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
10 a.m.–10:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
10:15 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Protected Resources Committee, consider committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider Committee recommendations and will take action as appropriate.
10:45 a.m.–11 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.
11 a.m.–11:15 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, approve the Council Follow Up and Priorities, take action on the South Florida Management issues as appropriate, and consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
11:15 a.m.–11:30 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from its Data Collection Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
11:30 a.m.–11:45 a.m.: The Council will receive a report from the SSC Selection Committee, consider Committee recommendations and appoint and/or reappoint members to its SSC. The Council will consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
11:45 a.m.–12 noon: The Council will receive a report from the HMS Committee, consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
1:30 p.m.–1:45 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, consider Committee recommendations and take action as appropriate.
1:45 p.m.–2 p.m.: The Council will receive a report from the Information and Education Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.
2 p.m.–3:15 p.m.: The Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries SERO and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The Council will review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary; review agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Alejandro Acevedo-Gutiérrez, Ph.D. of Western Washington University's Department of Biology, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225, to conduct research on harbor seals (
The permit and related documents are available for review 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.
Courtney Smith or Amy Sloan, (301)427–8401.
On February 14, 2014 notice was published in the
Permit No. 18002 authorizes non-invasive research techniques including scat collection and a small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) to determine the level of individual diet specializations (prey consumption) amongst harbor seals within the Salish Sea area of Washington State. Annually, researchers may take (incidentally harass) 57,600
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete a product and a service previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 5/16/2014 (79 FR 28490–28491), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entity to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 28, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Military Personnel Policy/Armed Forces Chaplains Board, ATTN: Brian A. Hodge, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–4000 or call at (703) 697–9911.
The DD Form 2088 is used to verify the professional and ecclesiastical qualifications of Religious Ministry Professionals for initial appointment or chaplains change of career status appointments as chaplains in the Military Service. This form is an essential element of a chaplain's professional qualifications and will become a part of a chaplain's military personnel record. DoD listed endorsing agents utilize the form to endorse military chaplains representing their organizations.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), DoD.
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the National Security Education Board will take place. This meeting is open to the public.
Monday, September 22, 2014, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Renaissance Dupont Circle Hotel, 415 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Alison Patz, telephone (703) 696–1991,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at the address listed in
The Designated Federal Official will review all timely submissions with the National Security Education Board and ensure they are provided to all members of the National Security Education Board before the meeting that is the subject of this notice.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 29, 2014.
Fred Licari, 571–372–0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email at
The Commission gives notice that the following applicants have filed an application for an Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). Notice is also given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a licensee.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email at
By the Commission.
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101).
The Commission gives notice that the Order revoking the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been rescinded pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101).
The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked or terminated for the reason indicated pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101) effective on the date shown.
The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on September 29, 2014. The topic for this meeting will be “Implementing the Department of Health and Human Services National Action Plan for Hypoglycemic Safety.” The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on September 29, 2014 from 8:15 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Individuals wanting to present oral comments must notify the contact person at least 10 days before the meeting date.
The meeting will be held in Building 31 Conference Room 6C6, on the NIH Campus in Bethesda, MD.
For further information concerning this meeting, see the DMICC Web site,
The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The September 29, 2014 DMICC meeting will focus on “Implementing the Department of Health and Human Services National Action Plan for Hypoglycemic Safety.”
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site,
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 28, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.
Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.
Households selected for participation in the MEPS–HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.
The MEPS–HC has the following goal:
• To provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for health care use, expenditures, sources of payment and health insurance coverage.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b–2.
To achieve the goals of the MEPS–HC the following data collections are implemented:
I. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expense and payment, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with health plans and providers, children's health, and adult preventive care. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit (RU), which is typically a family, only one person normally provides this information.
2. Adult Self Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) will be used to collect self-reported (rather than through household proxy) information on health status, health opinions and satisfaction with health care for adults 18 and older. The satisfaction with health care items are a subset of items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). The health status items are from the Short Form 12 Version 2 (SF–12 version 2), which has been widely used as a measure of self-reported health status in the United States, the Kessler Index (K6) of non-specific psychological distress, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ–2).
3. Diabetes Care SAQ. A brief self administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year (during rounds 3 and 5) to persons identified-as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which the pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin.
4. Permission forms for the MEPS–MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for permission to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies.
The MEPS–HC was last approved by OMB on December 20th, 2012 and will expire on December 31st, 2015. The OMB control number for the MEPS–HC is 0935–0118. All of the supporting documents for the current MEPS–HC can be downloaded from OMB's Web site at.
The MEPS is a multi-purpose survey. In addition to collecting data to yield annual estimates for a variety of measures related to health care use and expenditures, the MEPS also provides estimates of measures related to health status, consumer assessment of health care, health insurance coverage, demographic characteristics, employment and access to health care indicators. Estimates can be provided for individuals, families and population subgroups of interest. Data from the MEPS–HC are intended for a number of annual reports required to be produced by the Agency, including the National Health Care Quality Report and the National Health Care Disparities Report.
AHRQ proposes to make the following changes to questions asked of respondents:
Additions:
Closing—questions pertaining to respondent email;
Reenumeration—addition of questions pertaining to educational level attainment and the determination of institutional status;
Provider Probes—determination if healthcare was received in an overnight facility; and
Health Insurance—questions were added regarding interaction with the health insurance marketplace, enrollment through state health insurance exchanges, the extent of subsidized health insurance, monthly premiums, health insurance metal plan names, and medical debt.
Preventive Care—a field test will be conducted to assess response loss through self-administration.
Deletions:
Questions were removed from the following sections: Access to Care; Closing; Medical Conditions; Charge Payment; Child Preventive Health; Disability Days; Employment, Health Status; Health Insurance; and Income.
Questions were removed to reduce burden and redundancy, additional questions were removed due to difficulty in respondent interpretation, low frequency in response or minimal variation, and limited ability of respondent to respond accurately.
There are no changes to the current burden estimates.
Estimated Annual Costs to the Federal Government There are no changes-to the current cost estimates.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b–21 to b–26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 30, 2014.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403–3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427–1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438–7231; TTY (local): (301) 427–1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from Patient Safety Services, LLC, PSO number P0129, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Patient Safety Services, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 30, 2014.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for Scientific Information Submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of Health Information Exchange, which is currently being conducted by the Evidence-based Practice Centers for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program. Access to published and unpublished pertinent scientific information will improve the quality of this review. AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 108–173, and Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a).
Submission Deadline on or before September 29, 2014.
Online submissions:
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503–220–8262 ext. 58653 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program Evidence-based Practice Centers to complete a review of the evidence for Health Information Exchange.
The EHC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (e.g., details of studies conducted). We are looking for studies that report on Health Information Exchange, including those that describe adverse events. The entire research protocol, including the key questions, is also available online at:
This notice is to notify the public that the EHC Program would find the following information on Health Information Exchange helpful:
• A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please indicate whether results are available on ClinicalTrials.gov along with the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number.
• For completed studies that do not have results on ClinicalTrials.gov, please provide a summary, including the following elements: Study number, study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, baseline characteristics, number of patients screened/eligible/enrolled/lost to follow-up/withdrawn/analyzed, effectiveness/efficacy, and safety results.
• A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.
• Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EHC Program. The contents of all submissions will be made available to the public upon request. Materials submitted must be publicly available or can be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EHC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EHC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
The systematic review will answer the following questions. This information is provided as background. AHRQ is not requesting that the public provide answers to these questions. The entire research protocol, is also available online at:
The draft Key Questions (KQs) developed during Topic Refinement were available for public comment from February 6 to February 26, 2014. The comments did not lead to significant changes but were helpful in identifying additional factors of interest in KQ 4 and KQ 5, and for clarifying the wording of the questions.
Based on the public comments and subsequent discussions with AHRQ, the following changes of note were made to the KQs:
• KQ 4: Added “provider type” to KQ 4b. Added an additional sub question of “Do level of use and primary uses vary by data source?”
• KQ 5: Added an additional sub question of “How does usability vary by health care settings or systems?”
The revised KQs are as follows:
• Does effectiveness vary by type of HIE?
• Does effectiveness vary by health care settings and systems?
• Does effectiveness vary by IT system characteristics?
• What evidence exists that the lack of HIE leads to poorer outcomes?
• Do harms vary by type of HIE?
• Do harms vary by health care settings and systems?
• Do harms vary by the IT system characteristics?
• Does effectiveness in improving intermediate outcomes vary by type of HIE?
• Does effectiveness in improving intermediate outcomes vary by health care settings and systems?
• Does effectiveness in improving intermediate outcomes vary by IT system characteristics?
• What evidence exists that the lack of HIE leads to poorer intermediate outcomes?
• Do level of use and primary uses vary by type of HIE?
• Do level of use and primary uses vary by health care settings and systems, or provider type?
• Do level of use and primary uses vary by IT system characteristics?
• Do level of use and primary uses vary by data source?
• How usable are various types of HIE?
• What specific usability factors impact the effectiveness or harms from HIE?
• How does usability vary by health care settings or systems?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact implementation vary by type of HIE?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact implementation vary by health care settings and systems?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact implementation vary by IT system characteristics?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact use vary by type of HIE?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact use vary by health care settings and systems?
• Do facilitators and barriers that impact use vary by IT system characteristics?
Any individual or group of health care providers, patients, managers, health care institutions, or regional organizations.
Heath Information Exchange (HIE). HIE is defined as the electronic sharing of clinical information among users such as health care providers, patients, administrators or policy makers across the boundaries of health care institutions, health data repositories, States and others, typically not within a single organization or among affiliated providers, while protecting the integrity, privacy, and security of the information.
• Time period prior to HIE implementation
• Locations (geographic or organizational without HIE)
• Situations in which HIE is not available, akin to “usual care” in a clinical study
• Comparisons across types of HIE
• Comparisons of the characteristics of the different settings, health care system, and IT systems in which HIE is used
KQ 1: Effectiveness is defined in terms of clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity), economic outcomes (e.g., costs and resource use, the value proposition for HIE) and population outcomes (e.g., syndromic surveillance for the identification of trends or clusters).
KQ 2: Harms include unintended negative consequence or adverse events experienced by individuals, institutions, or organizations. Harms from HIE may include negative outcomes or the risk of negative outcomes resulting from information that is wrong, not provided in a timely manner, or in formats that inhibit its identification, comprehension, and use. Harms also may result from too much information as well as lack of information. Harms can also include negative impacts on attitudes (e.g., patients not trusting the privacy will be protected, clinicians' concerns about legal liability).
KQ 3: Intermediate outcomes include outcomes such as provider and patient experience and perceptions; changes in provider behavior and health care processes; and changes in the availability, completeness, or accuracy of information.
KQ 4: Level of use is the rate of HIE use by individuals, health care institutions, or regional organizations.
KQ 5: Usability focuses on the function of the HIE in terms of the interaction between users and HIE and their ability to navigate and accomplish tasks.
KQ 6: Implementation of HIE is defined as the realization of an HIE project such that the exchange of data is operational.
KQ 7: Use is the incorporation of the HIE into the workflow and decisions of patients, providers or organizations.
KQ 8: Sustainability is long-term maintenance, and improvement or expansion of HIE, after the implementation period.
No minimum duration of time lapsed from implementation of HIE to the measurement of outcomes.
Any aspect of the setting in which health information is exchanged for the purpose of improving health or health care decisions that is hypothesized to impact effectiveness, use, usability or sustainability. This may include the type(s) of clinical environments (e.g., ambulatory care, hospital, nursing home, etc.), payment/reimbursement model(s) (e.g., fee-for-service, managed care setting, risk/value-based model such as an accountable care organization, etc.), and legislative requirements (e.g., participation in HIE required to participate in Medicaid).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This survey supports the National Quality Strategy developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that was called for under the Affordable Care Act to create national aims and priorities to guide local, state, and national efforts to
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by October 28, 2014.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number (OCN). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection referenced below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection reference below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR part 1320(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed. We are seeking emergency approval for modifications to the ICR currently approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0938–0760, entitled Medicare and Medicaid Programs OASIS Collection Requirements as Part of the CoPs for HHAs and Supporting Regulations. The revisions contained in this request pertain only to the Outcome Assessment and Information Set, C–1/ICD–9 Version (OASIS–C1/ICD–9 Version); therefore all other requirements in the currently approved PRA package are not being revised. The approval of this data collection instrument is essential because OASIS data is used in the calculation of provider payment as well as for measurement of the quality of care provided by Home Health Agencies (HHAs).
Comments must be received by September 12, 2014
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number (OCN). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We are requesting an emergency review under 5 CFR Part 1320(a)(2)(i) because public harm is reasonably likely to result if the normal clearance procedures are followed.
1.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the OASIS–C1 information collection request on February 6, 2014. We originally planned
The OASIS–C1/ICD–9 version is an interim version of the OASIS–C1 data item set that was created in response to the legislatively mandated ICD–10 delay. There are five items in OASIS–C1 that require ICD–10 codes. In the OASIS–C1/ICD–9 version, these items have been replaced with the corresponding items from OASIS–C that use ICD–9 coding. The OASIS–C1/ICD–9 version also incorporates updated clinical concepts, modified item wording and response categories and improved item clarity. In addition, the OASIS–C1/ICD–9 version includes a significant decrease in provider burden that was accomplished by the deletion of a number of non-essential data items from the OASIS–C data item set.
We are requesting OMB review and approval of this collection by September 17, 2014, with a 180-day approval period. Written comments and recommendations will be considered from the public if received by the date and address noted below.
Copies of the supporting statement and any related forms can be found at:
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 43,018.
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
Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Notice.
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is announcing its evaluation policy for research or demonstration projects as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1310.
This evaluation policy builds on ACF's strong history of evaluation by outlining key principles to govern our planning, conduct, and use of evaluation. The evaluation policy reconfirms our commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations and to using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and practice. ACF seeks to promote rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, and ethics in the conduct of evaluations. This policy addresses each of these principles.
The mission of ACF is to foster health and well-being by providing Federal leadership, partnership, and resources for the compassionate and effective delivery of human services. Our vision is children, youth, families, individuals, and communities who are resilient, safe, healthy, and economically secure. The importance of these goals demands that we continually innovate and improve, and that we evaluate our activities and those of our partners. Through evaluation, ACF and our partners can learn systematically so that we can make our services as effective as possible.
Evaluation produces one type of evidence. A learning organization with a culture of continual improvement requires many types of evidence, including not only evaluation but also descriptive research studies, performance measures, financial and cost data, survey statistics, and program administrative data. Further, continual improvement requires systematic approaches to using information, such as regular data-driven reviews of performance and progress. Although this policy focuses on evaluation, the principles and many of the specifics apply to the development and use of other types of information as well.
This policy applies to all ACF-sponsored evaluations. While much of ACF's evaluation activity is overseen by OPRE, ACF program offices also sponsor evaluations through dedicated contracts or as part of their grant-making. In order to promote quality, coordination, and usefulness in ACF's evaluation activities, ACF program offices will consult with OPRE in developing evaluation activities. Program offices will discuss evaluation projects with OPRE in early stages to clarify evaluation questions and methodological options for addressing them, and as activities progress, OPRE will review designs, plans, and reports. Program offices may also ask OPRE to design and oversee evaluation projects on their behalf or in collaboration with program office staff.
Rigor: ACF is committed to using the most rigorous methods that are appropriate to the evaluation questions and feasible within budget and other constraints. Rigor is not restricted to impact evaluations, but is also necessary in implementation or process evaluations, descriptive studies, outcome evaluations, and formative evaluations; and in both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rigor requires ensuring that inferences about cause and effect are well founded (internal validity); requires clarity about the populations, settings, or circumstances to which results can be generalized (external validity); and requires the use of measures that accurately capture the intended information (measurement reliability and validity).
In assessing the effects of programs or services, ACF evaluations will use methods that isolate to the greatest extent possible the impacts of the programs or services from other influences such as trends over time, geographic variation, or pre-existing differences between participants and non-participants. For such causal questions, experimental approaches are preferred. When experimental approaches are not feasible, high-quality quasi-experiments offer an alternative.
ACF will recruit and maintain an evaluation workforce with training and experience appropriate for planning and overseeing a rigorous evaluation portfolio. To accomplish this, ACF will recruit staff with advanced degrees and experience in a range of relevant disciplines such as program evaluation, policy analysis, economics, sociology, child development, etc. ACF will provide professional development opportunities so that staff can keep their skills current.
ACF will ensure that contractors and grantees conducting evaluations have appropriate expertise through emphasizing the capacity for rigor in requests for proposal and funding opportunity announcements. This emphasis entails specifying expectations in criteria for the selection of grantees and contractors, and engaging reviewers with evaluation expertise. It also requires allocating sufficient resources for evaluation activities. ACF will generally require evaluation contractors to consult with external advisors who are leaders in relevant fields through the formation of technical work groups or other means.
Relevance: Evaluation priorities should take into account legislative requirements and Congressional interests and should reflect the interests and needs of ACF, HHS, and Administration leadership; program office staff and leadership; ACF partners such as states, territories, tribes, and local grantees; the populations served; researchers; and other stakeholders. Evaluations should be designed to represent the diverse populations that ACF programs serve, and ACF should encourage diversity among those carrying out the work, through building awareness of opportunities and building evaluation capacity among under-represented groups.
There must be strong partnerships among evaluation staff, program staff, policy-makers, and service providers. Policy-makers and practitioners should have the opportunity to influence evaluation priorities to meet their interests and needs. Further, for new initiatives and demonstrations in particular, evaluations will be more feasible and useful when planned in concert with the planning of the initiative or demonstration, rather than as an afterthought. Given Federal requirements related to procurement and information collection, it can take many months to award a grant or contract and begin collecting data. Thus, it is critical that planning for research and evaluation be integrated with planning for new initiatives.
It is important for evaluators to disseminate findings in ways that are accessible and useful to policy-makers and practitioners. OPRE and program offices will work in partnership to inform potential applicants, program providers, administrators, policy-makers, and funders through disseminating evidence from ACF-sponsored and other good quality evaluations.
It is ACF's policy to integrate both use of existing evidence and opportunities for further learning into all of our activities. Where an evidence base is lacking, we will build evidence through strong evaluations. Where evidence exists, we will use it. Discretionary funding opportunity announcements will require that successful applicants cooperate with any Federal evaluations if selected to participate. As legally allowed, programs with waiver authorities should require rigorous evaluations as a condition of waivers. As appropriate, ACF will encourage, incentivize, or require grantees to use existing evidence of effective strategies in designing or selecting service approaches. The emphasis on evidence is meant to support, not inhibit, innovation, improvement, and learning.
Transparency: ACF will make information about planned and ongoing evaluations easily accessible, typically through posting on the web information about the contractor or grantee conducting the work and descriptions of the evaluation questions, methods to be used, and expected timeline for reporting results. ACF will present information about study designs, implementation, and findings at professional conferences.
Study plans will be published in advance. ACF will release evaluation results regardless of the findings. Evaluation reports will describe the methods used, including strengths and weaknesses, and discuss the generalizability of the findings. Evaluation reports will present comprehensive results, including favorable, unfavorable, and null findings. ACF will release evaluation results timely—usually within 2 months of a report's completion.
ACF will archive evaluation data for secondary use by interested researchers, typically through building requirements into contracts to prepare data sets for secondary use.
Independence: Independence and objectivity are core principles of evaluation.
• ACF will conduct evaluations through the competitive award of grants and contracts to external experts who are free from conflicts of interest.
• The director of OPRE reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families; has authority to approve the design of evaluation projects and analysis plans; and has authority to approve, release, and disseminate evaluation reports.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) has determined that JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 milligrams (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Nisha Shah, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–4455.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (§ 314.162 (21 CFR 314.162)).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, is the subject of NDA 20–544, held by Population Council, and initially approved on November 1, 1996. JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implants, 75 mg, are indicated for the prevention of pregnancy and are a long-term (up to 5 years) reversible method of contraception.
Population Council has never marketed JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg. Therefore, as in previous instances (see e.g., 72 FR 9763, 61 FR 25497), the Agency has determined, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.
Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP submitted a citizen petition dated July
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to JADELLE (levonorgestrel) implant, 75 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports” dated August 2014. The draft guidance document provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of lot distribution reports for applicants with approved biologics license applications (BLAs). FDA recently published in the
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 28, 2014.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002 or Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1–800–835–4709 or 240–402–7800 or CDER at 301–796–3400. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Lori J. Churchyard, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–7911 or Jared Lantzy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 1116, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Electronic Submission of Lot Distribution Reports” dated August 2014. The draft guidance provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of lot distribution reports. The draft guidance provides information on how to electronically submit lot distribution reports for biological products under approved BLAs for which CBER or CDER has regulatory responsibility. When finalized, this guidance will not apply to any other biological product.
FDA recently published in the
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA'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.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 600.81 and
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site (
Information on accessing the webinar will be available via the following Web site not later than two days prior to the meeting date:
Mr. Shane Rogers, Designated Federal Official, ACTPCMD, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 12C–06, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, call 301–443–5260, or email
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site (
Information on accessing the webinar will be available via the following Web site no later than 2 days prior to the meeting date:
Mr. Shane Rogers, Designated Federal Official, COGME, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 12C–06, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, call 301–443–5260, or email
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive start-up option license to practice the inventions embodied in: (E–147–1999/0 &1) US provisional patent application No. 60/128/898 filed 4/12/1999, and PCT application No. PCT/US00/09839 filed 4/12/2000, and U.S. patent No. 6,977,245 filed 02/06/2002 issued 12/20/2005, and U.S. patent No. 7,960,356 filed 05/17/2005 and issued 06/14/2011, and EP1176966 granted 4/3/2013, each entitled “Oligodeoxynucleotide and Its Use to Induce an Immune Response”; and (E–036–2005/0) US provisional patent application No. 60/713,547 filed August 31, 2005, and PCT application No. PCT/US2006/033774 filed August 28, 2006, and US patent 7,892,569 filed 8/31/2005 issued 2/22/2011, and Canada application number 2620582 filed 2/28/08, and Australia patent 2006284889 filed 8/28/2006 issued 12/1/11, and Japan patent 5481068 filed 8/28/2006 issued 2/21/2014, each entitled “Method of Altering an Immune Response Induced by CpG Oligodeoxynucleotides”; and (E–214–2001/0) US provisional patent application No. 60/312,190 filed August 14, 2001, and PCT application No. PCT/US202/025732, and US patent 7,354,909 filed February 2, 2004 issued April 8, 2008, and US patent 7,959,934 filed March 28, 2008 issued June 14, 2011, each entitled “Method for Rapid Generation of Mature Dendritic Cells” by Klinman et al. (FDA), to Neuralexo, LLC, having a place of business at 17367 Canal Circle, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035.
The United States of America is an assignee to the patent rights of these inventions.
The prospective exclusive start-up option licensed territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to: preventative treatment for ischemic injury in organs.
Only written comments and/or application for a license that are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before September 15, 2014 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patent application, inquiries, comments and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Tedd Fenn, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804; Email:
This invention relates to compositions and methods of use of oligodeoxynucleotides (ODNs) expressing CpG motifs to induce immune responses. These ODN motifs trigger immune system responses which may mediate inflammatory responses to tissue injury, such as those responses following ischemic damage to the central nervous system. Structural differences between various ODNs may stimulate distinct cell populations, allowing selective targeting of immune responses for therapeutic purposes. Non-human primate and animal models using specific ODNs for pharmacological preconditioning have shown that ODNs may act therapeutically as neuroprotectants from ischemic damage. These TLR ligands as may be useful therapeutically as neuroprotectants in ischemic injury.
The prospective exclusive start-up option license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive start-up option license may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.
Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive start-up option license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board, September 08, 2014, 06:00 p.m. to September 09, 2014, 05:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is being amended to cancel the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Global Cancer Research on September 8, 2014.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c) (6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B–17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443–2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1–800–927–7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses:
Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Department of the Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comments on the provisions thereof.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 28, 2014
Send your written comments to: Attention—Indian Arts and Crafts Board, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS–2528 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. If you wish to submit comments by facsimile, the number is (202) 208–5196, or you may send them by email to
To request a copy of the information collection request, any explanatory information and related forms, see the contact information provided in the
This notice is for renewal of information collection.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Source Directory of American Indian and Alaska Native Owned and Operated Arts and Crafts Businesses (Source Directory) is a program of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board that promotes American Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts. The Source Directory is a listing of American Indian and Alaska Native-owned and-operated arts and crafts businesses that may be accessed by the public on the Indian Arts and Crafts Board's Web site:
The service of being listed in this directory is provided free-of-charge to members of federally recognized Tribes. Businesses listed in the Source Directory include American Indian and Alaska Native artists and craftspeople, cooperatives, Tribal arts and crafts enterprises, businesses privately-owned and-operated by American Indian and Alaska Native artists, designers, and craftspeople, and businesses privately-owned and -operated by American Indian and Alaska Native merchants who retail and/or wholesale authentic Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts. Business listings in the Source Directory are arranged alphabetically by State.
The Director of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board uses this information collected in information collection 1085–0001 to determine whether an individual or business applying to be listed in the Source Directory meets the requirements for listing. If approved, the application will be included in the Source Directory. The Source Directory is updated annually to include new businesses and to update existing information.
To be listed in the Source Directory, interested individuals and businesses must submit: (1) A draft of their business information in a format like the other Source Directory listings, (2) a copy of the individual's or business owner's Tribal enrollment card; and for businesses, proof that the business is organized under Tribal, state, or federal law; and (3) a certification that the business is an American Indian or
The following information is collected in a single-page form that is distributed by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Although listing in the Source Directory is voluntary, submission of this information is required for inclusion in the Directory.
(1)
(2) Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden:
(3) Description of the need and use of the information: Submission of this information is required to receive the benefit of being listed in the Indian Arts and Crafts Board Source Directory. The information is collected to determine the applicant's eligibility for the service and to obtain the applicant's name and business address to be added to the online directory.
The Departments invite comments on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the collection of information and the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
“Burden” means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, and to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
All written comments, with names and addresses, will be available for public inspection. If you wish us to withhold your personal information, you must prominently state at the beginning of your comment what personal information you want us to withhold. We will honor your request to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to view any comments received, you may do so by scheduling an appointment with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board in Room 2528 of the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A valid picture identification is required for entry into the Department of the Interior.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received applications from Apache Alaska Corporation (Apache), SAExploration, Inc., LLC (SAE), and BlueCrest Energy, Inc. (BlueCrest), formerly Buccaneer Alaska Operations, LLC, for authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended, to take small numbers of northern sea otters from the Southcentral stock by harassment incidental to proposed oil and gas exploration activities in Cook Inlet, Alaska. In accordance with provisions of the MMPA, we request comments on our proposed authorization for the applicant to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of northern sea otters from the Southcentral stock for a period of 1 year. We anticipate no take by injury or death and include none in this proposed authorization, which would be for take by harassment only.
Comments and information must be received by September 29, 2014.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, ATTN: FWS–R7–ES–2014–0031, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; or
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Please indicate to which document, the proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization, or the environmental assessments, your comments apply. We will post all comments on
To request copies of the application, the list of references used in the notice, and other supporting materials, contact Craig Perham, 1–800–362–5148; Marine Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; or by email at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)), authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, provided that we make certain findings and either issue regulations or, if the taking is limited to harassment, provide a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment.
We may grant authorization to incidentally take marine mammals if we find that the taking will have a negligible impact on small numbers of the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. As part of the authorization process, we prescribe permissible methods of taking, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings.
The term “take,” as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [the MMPA calls this Level A harassment], or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [the MMPA calls this Level B harassment].”
The terms “small numbers,” “negligible impact,” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27, the Service's regulations governing take of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to specified activities. “Small numbers” is defined as “a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock.” However, we do not rely on that definition here, as it conflates the terms “small numbers” and “negligible impact,” which we recognize as two separate and distinct requirements. Instead, in our small numbers determination, we evaluate whether the number of marine mammals likely to be taken is small relative to the size of the overall population. “Negligible impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” “Unmitigable adverse impact” is defined as “an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals where the take will be limited to harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) establishes a 45-day time limit for Service review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, we must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization. We refer to these authorizations as Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs).
The Service has issued IHAs for sea otters in the past. These include: three IHAs incidental to airport construction on Akun Island and hovercraft operation between Akun Island and Akutan, Alaska (August 27, 2008 [73 FR 50634]; June 8, 2010 [75 FR 32497];
On April 15, 2014, the Service received an application from Apache Corporation (Apache) to take, by harassment, northern sea otters from the Southcentral stock (
On October 28, 2013, the Service received an application from SAExploration, Inc. (SAE) for the taking, by harassment, of sea otters from the Southcentral stock incidental to a 3D nodal or ocean-bottom node seismic survey program in State and Federal waters in lower Cook Inlet starting on December 1, 2014. The surveys will conclude before the IHA expires. The proposed seismic survey would occur in the marine waters of both upper and lower Cook Inlet. The survey area is divided into two units: (1) Upper Cook Inlet, an area of 2,126 square km (821 square mi) beginning at Point Possession, to a line approximately 10 km (6 mi) south of both the West Foreland and East Foreland; and (2) lower Cook Inlet, a 1,808-square-km (698-square-mi) area beginning east of Kalgin Island and running along the east side of lower Cook Inlet to Anchor Point. We focused on the lower Cook Inlet area because sea otters do not occur in upper Cook Inlet (Figure 1).
On April 15, 2014, Buccaneer/BlueCrest Alaska Operations, LLC (BlueCrest) submitted an IHA application to the Service requesting take of small numbers of sea otters from the Southcentral stock during the Cosmopolitan exploratory drilling program in lower Cook Inlet during the November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015, period. These two well locations (Cosmopolitan State #1 and Cosmopolitan State #2; Figure 1) are within the State of Alaska Division of Land Oil and Gas Lease 384403.
These applications are available as specified above in
Prior to issuing IHAs in response to these three requests, we must evaluate the level of industrial activities described in the applications, their associated potential impacts to sea otters, and their effects on the availability of this species for subsistence use. The information provided by the applicants indicates that oil and gas activities projected over the next year will encompass onshore and offshore exploration activities. The Service is tasked with analyzing the impact that lawful industrial activities will have on sea otters during normal operating procedures.
Apache will perform the proposed seismic survey operations from multiple vessels starting in mid-October 2014. Two source vessels will be used, both equipped with compressors and 2,400-cubic-inch airgun arrays. One source vessel also will be equipped with a 440-cubic-inch shallow-water airgun array, which can be deployed at high tide in the intertidal area in less than 1.8 m (5.9 ft) of water. Three shallow draft vessels and one mitigation vessel will support cable/nodal deployment and retrieval operations. One vessel will house and recharge the receiver nodes, and two smaller jet boats will be used for personnel transport and node support in the extremely shallow water of the intertidal area. For additional information, such as vessel specifications, see Apache's application (
Apache anticipates conducting in-water survey operations 24 hours per day. During each 24-hour period, seismic operations will be active; however, in-water airgun activity can occur only during slack tides because of the strong currents. In general, there are four slack tides in a 24-hour period and airguns can typically operate for 2–3 hours around each slack tide, yielding a maximum of 8–12 hours of airgun operations in a given day.
The 2,400-cubic-inch airgun arrays and the 440-cubic-inch airgun array will be used to obtain geological data during the survey. The acoustic source level of the 2,400-cubic-inch airgun array was predicted using an airgun array source model developed by JASCO Applied Sciences. The 190, 180, and 160 dB
An acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to determine the geo-referenced positions of the nodes after they have been placed on the seafloor. One device, the Scout Ultra-Short Baseline Transceiver, operates at frequencies of 33–55 kilohertz (kHz) at a maximum source level of 188 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The other device, an LR Ultra-Short Baseline Transponder, operates at frequencies of 35–50 kHz at a source level of 185 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. With respect to these two sound sources, the Service will rely on the distance to the Level B harassment threshold for sea otters estimated for the higher sound pressure level of the two devices as provided by Apache. Therefore, assuming a simple spreading loss of 20 log R (where R is radius) with a source level of 188 dB, the distances to the 190 and 160 dB isopleths would be 1 m and 25 m (3.2 ft and 82 ft), respectively. Another technique for locating the nodes in deeper water is called Ocean Bottom Receiver Location, which uses a small volume airgun (10 cubic inches) firing parallel to the node line.
Apache will also conduct seismic survey activities in onshore and intertidal areas that will be surveyed using nodal technology and explosives as the sound source. To access the onshore drill sites, Apache will use a combination of helicopter portable and tracked vehicle drills. In September 2011, Apache conducted sound source verification to characterize the underwater received sound levels resulting from land-based explosives. Shot locations for the land-based explosives were acoustically monitored to determine if underwater received sound levels exceeded the harassment threshold of 160 dB re 1 μPa. Received levels detected by the real-time vessel-based data logging systems located 3 km (1.86 mi) from the nearest shot hole were well below the harassment threshold criterion of 160 dB re 1 Pa rms. A detailed description of the proposed seismic survey activities in onshore and intertidal areas can be found in Apache's Environmental Assessment (EA).
SAExploration plans to conduct 3D nodal or ocean-bottom node seismic surveys in State and Federal waters within both upper and lower Cook Inlet. The seismic acquisition in the lower Cook Inlet unit would initially begin in December 2014, and start in the northern half of their action area to avoid encounters with summering marine mammals near Anchor Point. Completing this work in the lower Cook Inlet unit is estimated to take 60 to 80 days.
Two source vessels will be used with multiple jet-driven shallow draft vessels for deployment and retrieval of offshore recording equipment. There will also be a housing vessel with a crew transfer and mitigation vessels (see SAE's EA for more details regarding specifications of these vessels). The components of the project include laying nodal recording sensors (nodes) on the ocean floor, operating seismic source vessels towing active airgun arrays, and retrieval of nodes.
SAExploration's seismic surveys will primarily utilize a 1,760-cubic-inch sleeve airgun array, although 440- or 880-cubic-inch arrays may be used in shallow water locations. The configuration of each array is outlined in SAE's application (
SAExploration's marine seismic operations will be based on a “recording patch” or similar approach. Patches will contain groups of 6 receiver lines and 32 source lines. Each receiver line has submersible marine nodes tethered equidistant (50 m; 165 ft) from each other along the length of the line. Each node will contain three velocity sensors and a hydrophone. The receiver lines will be approximately 8 km (5 mi) in length, and spaced approximately 402 m (1,320 ft) apart. Each receiver patch will cover approximately 19.4 square km (7.5 square mi) in area. The receiver patches will be oriented such that the receiver lines run parallel to the shoreline.
Source lines, 12 km (7.5 mi) long and spaced 502 m (1,650 ft) apart, will run perpendicular to the receiver lines and, where possible, will extend approximately 5 km (3 mi) beyond the outside receiver lines and approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) beyond each of the ends of the receiver lines. The outside dimensions of the maximum shot area during a patch shoot will be 12 km by 16 km (7.5 mi by 10 mi) and all shot areas will be wholly contained within the 1,808-square-km (698-square-mi) survey box. Shot intervals along each source line will be 50 m (165 ft).
It may take a period of 3 to 5 days to deploy, shoot, and record a single receiver patch. During recording of one patch, nodes from the previously surveyed patch will be retrieved, recharged, and data downloaded prior to redeployment of the nodes to the next patch. As patches are recorded, receiver lines are moved side to side or end to end to the next patch.
Autonomous recording nodes lack cables but will be tethered together using thin rope for ease of retrieval. This rope and nodes will lay on the seabed surface. A GPS will be attached to the airgun array for the primary vessel positioning. Nodes will be positioned using pingers deployed from the node vessels. Patch geometry may be modified during operations to improve sampling and operational efficiency.
As mentioned above, an acoustical positioning (or pinger) system will be used to position the nodes. A vessel-mounted transceiver calculates the position of the nodes by measuring the range and bearing from the transceiver to a small acoustic transponder fitted to every third node. The transceiver uses sonar to interrogate the transponders, which respond with short pulses that are used in measuring the range and bearing. The system provides a precise location of every node as needed for accurate interpretation of the seismic data. The transceiver to be used is the Sonardyne Scout USBL, while transponders will be the Sonardyne TZ/OBC Type 7815–000–06. Because the transceiver and transponder communicate via sonar, they produce underwater sound levels. The Scout USBL transceiver has a transmission source level of 197 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m and operates at frequencies between 35 and 55 kHz. The transponder produces short pulses of 184 to 187 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at frequencies also between 35 and 55 kHz.
BlueCrest proposes to conduct exploratory and delineation drilling operations at two well locations in the Cosmopolitan Unit in Cook Inlet during the 2014 summer drilling season until October 31, 2014. These plans include exploratory gas-only drilling operations at Cosmopolitan State #2, possible
Cosmopolitan #1 is located just off Cape Starichkof about 12.9 km (8 mi) north of Anchor Point (59°53′12.87″ N/−151°52′57.71″ W; Figure 1) in approximately 24 m (78 ft) of water at 4.8 km (3 mi) from shore. Cosmopolitan #2 is located 11.3 km (7 mi) north of Anchor Point (59°52′17.37” N/−151°51′55.09″ W; Figure 1) in about 16.5 m (54 ft) of water at 3.2 km (2 mi) from shore. BlueCrest's project area also includes two routes between the Port of Homer and Cosmopolitan.
BlueCrest will conduct its exploratory drilling using the
The
Helicopters (twin turbine Bell 212 or equivalent) will be used to transport personnel, groceries, and supplies to and from the rig. The helicopter will be based at the Kenai Airport to support rig crew changes and cargo handling. Fueling will take place at these facilities. No helicopter refueling will take place on the rig.
Helicopter flights to and from the rig are expected to average two per day. Flight routes will follow a direct route to and from the rig location, and flight heights will be maintained 300 to 450 m (1,000 to 1,500 ft) above ground level to avoid harassment of marine mammals (Richardson
Rig equipment will use diesel fuel or electricity. Personnel associated with fuel delivery, transfer, and handling will be knowledgeable of Industry Best Management Practices related to fuel transfer and handling, drum labeling, secondary containment guidelines, and the use of liners/drip trays. The jack-up rig will take on a maximum fuel load prior to operations to reduce fuel transfers during drilling. Commercial tank farms in the Nikiski or Kenai area will supply fuel transported by barge as needed. The rig barge master will be in charge of refueling and fluid transfers between the rig and fuel barge, and subsequent transfers between tanks on the rig.
BlueCrest proposes to drill at each well to bottom-hole depths of approximately 2,100 to 4,900 m (7,000 to 16,000 ft). Drilling will take approximately 30 to 75 days per well. Well testing will take another 7 to 15 days per well. When planned operations are completed, the wells will be plugged and abandoned according to Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations.
All operating procedures on the rig, whether automated or controlled by company or contractor personnel, are specifically designed to prevent a loss of well control. The primary method of well control utilizes the hydrostatic pressure exerted by a column of drilling mud of sufficient density to prevent an undesired flow of formation fluid into the well bore. In the unlikely event that primary control is lost, surface blowout prevention equipment would be used for secondary control. BlueCrest will use a 5,000-pounds-of-pressure-per-square-inch (psi) blowout prevention stack for shallow wells, and a 10,000- or 15,000-psi blowout prevention stack for drilling deeper wells in higher pressure formations known to exist in Cook Inlet.
Drilling wastes include drilling fluids, known as mud, rock cuttings, and formation waters. Drilling wastes (non-hydrocarbon) will be discharged into the waters of Cook Inlet under the approved Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES) general permit. Hydrocarbon drilling wastes will be delivered to an onshore permitted location for disposal. BlueCrest will follow best management practices to ensure that a sufficient inventory of barite and lost circulation materials are maintained on the drilling vessel to minimize the possibility of a well upset and the likelihood of a release of pollutants to Cook Inlet waters. In accordance with the APDES general permit for discharges of drilling muds and cuttings, BlueCrest will conduct an Environmental Monitoring Study of relevant hydrographic, sediment hydrocarbon, and heavy metal data before, during, and at least 1 year after drilling operations cease.
Non-drilling wastewater will also be discharged into Cook Inlet or delivered to an onshore permitted location for disposal per the approved APDES general permit. Non-drilling wastewater includes deck drainage, sanitary waste, domestic waste, blowout preventer fluid, boiler blowdown, fire control test water, bilge water, non-contact cooling water, and uncontaminated ballast water.
Solid waste (e.g., packaging, domestic trash) will be classified, segregated, and labeled as general, universal, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act exempt or nonexempt waste. It will be stored in containers at designated accumulation areas until it is packaged and palletized for transport to an approved onshore disposal facility. No hazardous wastes should be generated as a result of this project. However, if any hazardous wastes are generated, they would be temporarily stored in an onboard satellite accumulation area and then transported offsite for disposal at an approved facility.
Apache plans to conduct seismic surveys south of Ninilchik from approximately the middle of October 2014 through March or April 2015, during open water periods at slack tides.
SAExploration, Inc.'s seismic surveys in lower Cook Inlet will begin in December 2014 and start in the northern half of their action area to avoid encounters with summering marine mammals near Anchor Point. Completing this work in the lower Cook Inlet is estimated to take 60 to 80 days.
BlueCrest's exploratory drilling at Cosmopolitan State #2 (north of Anchor Point) is expected to begin in November 2014 and conclude in October 2015.
Lower Cook Inlet is within the range of the Southcentral stock of the northern
Within their range, sea otters do not use intertidal areas when void of open water and onshore use is extremely limited. The survey activities that will be conducted in the intertidal areas will occur only when those areas contain residual water (i.e., slack tide) and thus the Service has determined that the onshore and intertidal portions of Apache's and SAE's seismic surveys will not likely interact with, or impact, northern sea otters. Therefore, those seismic activities and related operations are not addressed in these proposed IHAs.
Biological Information for the Southcentral stock of northern sea otters can be found in the Service's Stock Assessment Report (USFWS 2014) (
Understanding of the effects of sound from oil and gas exploration and drilling activities (i.e., seismic, drilling, pile driving) on sea otters is important for the health of sea otters and the development of parameters by which sea otter takes can be established and monitored. The three proposed actions from Apache, SAE, and BlueCrest have the potential to disturb sea otters, particularly in protected waters in nearshore habitats, which are used for resting, pup rearing, and foraging.
Acoustic noise disturbance from underwater sound sources will be the primary concern for sea otters. For Apache and SAE, the main acoustic source of disturbance will be the airguns that will be deployed from the source vessels. Other underwater sound sources associated with the seismic surveys that could impact sea otters include the pingers and transponders associated with positioning and locating receiver nodes, and propeller noise from the vessel fleet. For BlueCrest, airborne sound sources include rig towing, noise generated from routine rig activities, and periodic air traffic. Routine boat traffic noise produced by all operators will also generate airborne sound. The Service believes that airborne sound sources will not exceed 160 dB (Level B harassment) and will not affect sea otters (Richardson 1995). Adherence to specified operating conditions for vessels and aircraft will ensure that these airborne sound sources do not take sea otters.
When disturbed by noise, otters may respond behaviorally (e.g., escape response) or physiologically (e.g., increased heart rate, hormonal response; Harms et al. 1997, Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). Either response results in a diversion from one biological activity to another. That diversion may cause stress (Goudie and Jones 2004), and it redirects energy away from fitness-enhancing activities such as feeding and mating (Frid and Dill 2002). Other changes in activities as a result of anthropogenic noise can include: Increased alertness; vigilance; agonistic behavior; escape behavior; temporary or permanent abandonment of an area; weakened reflexes; and lowered learning responses (van Polanen Petel et al. 2006). Chronic stress can lead to loss of immune function, decreased body weight, impaired reproductive function, and abnormal thyroid function.
Despite the importance of understanding the effects of sound on sea otters, very few controlled experiments or field observations have been conducted to address this topic. Those studies that have been conducted have concluded that sea otters are generally quite resistant to the effects of sound, and that change to presence, distribution, or behavior resulting from acoustic stimuli are rare (Ghoul et al. 2012a and b; Reichmuth and Ghoul 2012; Riedman 1984). Additionally, when sea otters have displayed behavioral disturbance to acoustic stimuli, they quickly become habituated and resume normal activity (Ghoul et al. 2012b).
Sea otters generally show a high degree of tolerance and habituation to shoreline activities and vessel traffic (Gill, USFWS, Marine Mammals Management, pers. obs.), but disturbance may cause animals to disperse from the local area. Populations of sea otters in Alaska have been known to avoid areas with heavy boat traffic but return to those same areas during seasons with less traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). Sea otters in Alaska have shown signs of disturbance (escape behaviors) in response to the presence and approach of survey vessels, including: Diving and/or actively swimming away from a boat; hauled-out otters entering the water; and groups of otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz et al. 1995). However, sea otters off the California coast showed only mild interest in boats passing within hundreds of meters, and sea otters in California appear to have habituated to boat traffic (Riedman 1983; Curland 1997). Their behavior is suggestive of a dynamic response to disturbance, abandoning areas when disturbed persistently and returning when the disturbance ceased. From the above research it is likely that some degree of disturbance from vessel traffic associated with the proposed actions will occur. Sea otters reacting to vessels they encounter may consume energy and divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding. However, these disturbances are expected to be short term in duration, and this potential short-term displacement is not anticipated to affect the overall fitness of any individual animal. We also anticipate that individual otters will habituate to the presence of project vessels and associated noise. Boat traffic, commercial and recreational, is constant in Cook Inlet. Some sea otters in the area of activity are likely to become habituated to vessel traffic and noise caused by vessels due to the existing continual traffic in the area. The additional vessel activity that will occur related to these three projects is not expected to substantially increase vessel noise or activity in the action area above that which is already occurring.
Sea otter collisions with vessels associated with the proposed project are unlikely. Tugs and barges are slow moving and pose little risk of colliding with otters. Collisions between fast-moving vessels do occur but are infrequent and are usually associated with impaired animals (Gill, USFWS, Marine Mammals Management, pers. comm.). No fast boat use is proposed, and it is unlikely that housing and crew transfer vessels will impact otters.
Effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable and can be categorized as: Tolerance; masking of natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; temporary or permanent hearing impairment; and non-auditory effects, such as female-pup separations (Richardson
Information regarding the northern sea otter's hearing abilities is limited; however, the closely related southern sea otter (
Riedman (1983) examined changes in the behavior, density, and distribution of southern sea otters at Soberanes Point, California, that were exposed to recorded noises associated with oil and gas activity. The underwater sound sources were played at a level of 110 dB and a frequency range of 50–20,000 Hz and included production platform activity, drillship, helicopter, and semi-submersible sounds. Riedman (1983) also observed the sea otters during seismic airgun shots fired at decreasing distances from the nearshore environment (50, 20, 8, 3.8, 3, 1, and 0.5 nautical miles) at a firing rate of 4 shots per minute and a maximum air volume of 4,070 cubic inches. Riedman (1983) observed no changes in the presence, density, or behavior of sea otters as a result of underwater sounds from recordings or airguns, even at the closest distance of 0.5 nm (<1 km). Otters did, however, display slight reactions to airborne engine noise. Riedman (1983) concluded that seismic activities had no measurable effect on sea otter behavior. The experiment was repeated the following year (Riedman 1984) with the same results.
In another controlled study using prerecorded sounds, Davis et al. (1988) exposed both northern sea otters in Simpson Bay, Alaska, and southern sea otters in Morro Bay, California, to a variety of aerial (airborne) and underwater sounds, including a warble tone, sea otter pup calls, killer whale calls, airhorns, and an underwater acoustic harassment system designed to drive marine mammals away from crude oil spills. The sounds were projected at a variety of frequencies, decibel levels, and intervals. The authors noted that certain acoustic stimuli could cause a startle response and result in dispersal. However, the disturbance effects were limited in range (no responses were observed for otters approximately 100–200 m (328–656 ft) from the source of the stimuli), and habituation to the stimuli was generally very quick (within hours or, at most, 3–4 days).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has developed noise thresholds used to measure injury for pinnipeds (i.e., on Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)). Sea otter specific thresholds have not been determined; however, because of their biological similarities, we assume that noise thresholds developed by NMFS for injury for pinnipeds will be a surrogate for sea otter impacts as well. When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. Severe cases can result in total or partial deafness. In other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985).
The noise thresholds established by NMFS for preventing injury to pinnipeds were developed as precautionary estimates of exposures below which physical injury would not occur. There is no empirical evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns (Southall et al. 2007). However, given the possibility that mammals close to an airgun array might incur at least mild TTS in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, researchers have speculated about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995).
Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS. By means of preventing the onset of TTS, it is highly unlikely that marine mammals could receive sounds strong enough (and over a sufficient duration) to cause permanent hearing impairment. These thresholds estimate that take in the form of PTS may occur when pinnipeds are exposed to sound pressure levels above 190 dB (Level A take; injury). NMFS thresholds indicate that take in the form of TTS can occur at levels above 160 dB (Level B; harassment) (all decibel (dB) levels given herein are re: 1 µPa RMS). Until specific sea otter thresholds are developed for both Level A and Level B harassment and injury, the use of NMFS thresholds for pinnipeds as a proxy for otters remains the best available information. NMFS's thresholds are further described and justified in NOAA (2005), NOAA (2006), NOAA (2008), and Southall et al. (2007) for our analysis.
In conclusion, using information available for other marine mammals as a surrogate, and taking into consideration what is known about sea otters, the Service has set the received sound level under water of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as a threshold for Level B take by disturbance for sea otters for this proposed IHA (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012a and b, McShane et al. 1995, NOAA 2005, Riedman 1983, Richardson
Sound reception studies by Ghoul and Reichmuth (2012b) determined that sea otters effectively hear between 125 Hz and 32 kHz, or above the range where most seismic energy is produced. Thus, sea otters appear to have limited hearing of seismic airguns (especially compared to humans with effective hearing down to 20 Hz). To the extent that sea otters can detect seismic noise, the potential effects of Apache's and SAE's proposed activities are described below.
Apache's seismic survey has the potential to affect sea otters with sound generated by the seismic airguns, active acoustic sources for surveys (i.e., pingers), and vessel transit. The seismic airguns used by Apache are two 2,400-cubic-inch airgun arrays. The acoustic source level of the 2,400-cubic-inch airgun arrays was predicted using the JASCO Applied Science air array source model. Two general survey environment scenarios were considered for the modeling study: A nearshore (from shore out to 18 km (11 mi) offshore) and a channel survey scenario (more than 18 km (11 mi) from shore). Results from this study can be found in Apache's EA. Mitigation measures are in place to reduce the acoustic impacts to sea otters. Vessel-based Protected Species Observers will monitor sea otters during all daylight airgun operations. To prevent Level A take of sea otters, airgun activity will shut down if a sea otter approaches within 500 m (1,640 ft) from the source vessel.
The seismic airguns that will be used during SAE's Cook Inlet operation have the potential to acoustically injure marine mammals at close proximity. As no sound levels have been effectively measured to establish the threshold where injury caused by an acoustic source exists, the 190-dB criterion for seals applies most closely to sea otters given their more similar natural history than compared to cetaceans. To avoid exposing marine mammals to these received noise levels, safety zones will be established based on the zones of impact (the area ensonified by a specific sound level) for the 440- (221.1 dB source), 880- (226.86 dB source) and 1,760- (236.55 dB source) cubic-inch airgun arrays. Based on the transmission losses empirically measured for similar arrays by Collins et al. (2007) in Cook Inlet (18.4 Log (R) + 0.00188R), the distances to the 190- and 180-dB isopleths (safety zone radii) are described in Table 2. Qualified protected species observers will be deployed aboard the seismic vessels to monitor the safety zones (see SAE's EA for a more detailed description) and alert operations to shut down at the approach of a marine mammal to these safety zones, (including a sea otter to the 190-dB safety zone 315-m radius (1,033 ft)).
Warner and McCrodan (2011) modeled the distances to the 190- and 180-dB isopleths from the same vessels to be used in this project while they were towing a 2,400-cubic-inch array in Cook Inlet. The maximum safety radii were 360 m (1,181 ft; 190 dB) and 1,070 m (3,510 ft; 180 dB), which correspond well to the numbers in Table 2 given that the 2,400-cubic-inch array is larger than the 1,760-cubic-inch array. Sound source verification of the 1,760-cubic-inch array will be conducted soon after operations begin, and the safety radii adjusted as needed.
While the pingers and transponders to be used by SAE will be used to relocate nodes, their generated source sound levels (185 to 193 dB) exceed Level A criteria, but only at a very limited radius distance of 0 to 6 m (0 to 20 ft). Marine mammal observers and operators will, however, ensure that no marine mammals are in the immediate vicinity before deploying active pingers and transponders.
Both the transceiver and the transponders for Apache's and SAE's projects produce noise levels just above the most sensitive hearing range of sea otters (0.125 to 32 kHz) (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012a and b). Further, given the low acoustical output of the transceiver and the transponders, the range of acoustical harassment to marine mammals is measured to be approximately 100 m (328 ft), which is significantly less than the output from the airgun arrays. In addition, the noise produced is not loud enough to reach injury levels in sea otters beyond 9 m (30 ft). Sea otters are likely to respond to transceiver and transponder transmission similar to airgun pulses, but only when underwater and very close (a few meters away) to the sources, which is very unlikely to occur given the boat activity involved.
Acoustic noise can also result from explosive charges used for seismic activity. Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely injured, where the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten
Seismic operations could also cause behavioral effects on sea otters. For example, severe disturbance from seismic noise or activities could cause female-pup separations, male territory abandonment, male territory shifts and conflicts between territories, breakup of rafts of nonbreeding males, and or movement by individual otters out of nearshore areas into deeper water. These types of displacement events, if they occurred, could have repercussions on breeding success and/or survival due to increased risk of predation or other adverse conditions. However, because sea otters spend relatively large amounts of time above the water surface compared to other marine mammals, sea otters' potential exposure to the underwater acoustic stimuli, such as those associated with seismic surveys (Greene and Richardson 1988), may be lower than that of other marine mammal species (Richardson et al. 2011). As previously stated, studies have not
The Service has never documented a stranding related to sound exposure for sea otters in Cook Inlet (Gill, USFWS Marine Mammals Management, pers. comm.). More directly, no strandings or sea otters in distress were observed during the 2D test survey conducted by Apache in March 2011 or reported by Cook Inlet inhabitants. To date, there is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding of sea otters can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun arrays. As a result, the Service does not expect any sea otters to incur serious injury (Level A harassment) or mortality in Cook Inlet or strand as a result of the proposed seismic survey.
For BlueCrest's drilling operation, two project components have the potential to disturb sea otters: Driving the conductor pipe at each well prior to drilling; and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) operations that may occur at the completion of each well drilling.
As described in BlueCrest's application, the conductor pipe driving and VSP are impulsive noise activities. Here the Level B disturbance exposure to sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) applies, and “take” is addressed relative to noise levels exceeding 160 dB, above which disturbance can occur until 190 dB, after which potential injury can occur.
A conductor pipe is a relatively short, large-diameter pipe driven into the sediment prior to the drilling of oil wells. This section of tubing serves to support the initial sedimentary part of the well, preventing the looser surface layer from collapsing and obstructing the wellbore. The pipe also facilitates the return of cuttings from the drill head. Conductor pipes are usually installed using drilling, pile driving, or a combination of these techniques. In offshore wells, the conductor pipe is also used as a foundation for the wellhead. BlueCrest proposes to drive approximately 90 m (300 ft) of 76.2-cm (30-inch) conductor pipe at Cosmopolitan #2 (and any associated delineation wells) prior to drilling using a Delmar D62–22 impact hammer. This hammer has impact weight of 6,200 kg (13,640 pounds) and reaches maximum impact energy of 224 kilonewton-m (165,215 foot-pounds) at a drop height of 3.6 m (12 ft).
Blackwell (2005) measured the noise produced by a Delmar D62–22 driving 91.4-cm (36-inch) steel pipe in Cook Inlet and found sound pressure levels to exceed 190 dB re 1µPa-m (rms) at about 60 m (200 ft), 180 dB re 1µPa-m (rms) at about 250 m (820 ft), and 160 dB re 1µPa-m (rms) at just less than 1.9 km (1.2 mi). Each conductor pipe driving event is expected to last 1 to 3 days, although actual noise generation (pounding) would occur only intermittently during this period. It is anticipated that sea otters will move away from any sound disturbance caused by the pipe driving or become habituated by it.
Once a well is drilled, accurate followup seismic data can be collected by placing a receiver at known depths in the borehole and shooting a seismic airgun at the surface near the borehole. This gathered data provides not only high-resolution images of the geological layers penetrated by the borehole, called vertical seismic profiling (VSP), but it can also be used to accurately correlate (or correct) the original surface seismic data.
BlueCrest intends to conduct VSP operations at the end of drilling each well using an array of airguns with total volumes of between 9.83 and 14.42 liters (600 and 880 cubic inches). Each VSP operation is expected to last less than 1 or 2 days. Assuming a 1-m source level of 227 dB re 1µPa (based on manufacturer's specifications) for a 14.42-liter (880-cubic-inch) array and using Collins et al.'s (2007) transmission loss model for the Cook Inlet (18.4 Log(R)—0.00188R), the 190-dB radius (Level A take threshold for pinnipeds and surrogate for sea otters) from source was estimated at 100 m (330 ft), and the 160-dB radius (Level B disturbance take threshold for all sea otters) at 2.46 km (1.53 mi). These were the initial injury and safety zones established for monitoring during a VSP operation conducted by Buccaneer at Cosmopolitan State #1 during July 2013. Illingworth and Rodkin (2013) measured the underwater noise levels associated with the July 2013 VSP operation using an 11.8-liter (720-cubic-inch) array and found the noise exceeding 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) extended out 2.47 km (1.56 mi) or virtually identical to the modeled distance. The measured radius to the 190-dB level was 75 m (246 ft) and to the 180-dB level was 240 m (787 ft). The best fit model for the empirical data was 227 –19.75 log(R)—0.0R (Illingworth and Rodkin 2013).
The jack-up drilling rig,
For this IHA analysis, acoustical injury to sea otters can occur if received noise levels exceed 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). This is classified as a Level A take (injury), which is not authorized by IHAs. The towing, drilling, and pump operations to be used during BlueCrest's program do not have the potential to acoustically injure marine mammals (see Section 6 of the BlueCrest application). Therefore, no shutdown safety zones will be established for these activities. However, the conductor pipe driving and VSP operations do generate impulsive noises exceeding 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). Based on the estimated distances to the 190-dB isopleth addressed above, a 60-m (200-foot)
As described earlier, the Service anticipates that incidental take will occur during Cook Inlet oil and gas activities conducted by Apache, SAE, and BlueCrest. In the sections below, we estimate take by harassment of the numbers of sea otters from the Southcentral stock that are likely to be affected during the proposed activities.
As noted earlier, there is a lack of information available regarding the impacts of noise disturbance on sea otters. However, by using information available for other marine mammals as a surrogate, and taking into consideration what is known about sea otters, the Service has set the received sound level under water of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) as a threshold for Level B take by disturbance for sea otters for this proposed IHA (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012a and b, McShane et al. 1995, NOAA 2005, Riedman 1983, Richardson et al. 1995). Exposure to unmitigated noise levels in the water greater than 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) will be considered by the Service as potentially injurious Level A take threshold for sea otters. Level A take will not be authorized and will be avoided through mitigation measures, such as ramp-down or shut-down procedures when sea otters are observed in a designated mitigation zone.
The current estimate for the Southcentral Alaska stock of northern sea otters is 18,297 (USFWS 2014). Aerial surveys in Kachemak Bay in 2002, 2007, and 2008, indicated that the sea otter population is increasing. The rate of increase for the Cook Inlet portion of the population is unknown because surveys have not been repeated; however, it is assumed to be similar to that in Kachemak Bay. The estimated sea otter population for Cook Inlet was, therefore, adjusted to allow for population growth between 2002 and 2014 at the same rate as Kachemak Bay. This rate was calculated by estimating least squares linear and exponential trends for the 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2012 population estimates. The linear model was selected based on model fit (R-squared
The density of sea otters has been reported as either otters per area or otters per length of linear coastline. Because sea otters primarily forage nearshore in shallow water and rely on coastal habitat, we calculated density per linear kilometer of coastline. The length of the 2002 USGS survey coastline from which the Cook Inlet population was estimated was 539.98 km. Using the estimated 2014 population size and applying that to the length of coastline; the Service calculated a density of 12.79 (95 percent CI 6.5–19.08) otters per kilometer of coastline (6,904/539.98 = 12.79). For the offshore activities proposed by Blue Crest, we used observational data from 2013 to estimate the number of sea otters per day within the area that could be observed from the drill rig. The estimate was based on the number of sea otters observed from the
Incidental take of otters is estimated as the number of otters that may be exposed to Level B harassment during the entire duration of the project, as it has been described. No lethal take is expected, and all take will be by harassment; therefore, individual animals may be taken multiple times over the course of the project. The total estimated number of takes is the number of otters multiplied by the number of times each animal could potentially be taken. It does not account for animals that may remove themselves from the impact area and thus avoid repeated exposures. It also does not subtract animals that are harassed early during the project but then become habituated to seismic sound at levels below injury thresholds. The Service has no information on which to base such adjustments to the calculation of total number of takes. However, larger estimates of the total number of takes are expected for projects with a larger impact area or longer duration. For these reasons, the estimated total number of takes should be considered as a useful metric for comparison rather than a precise measure of the project's overall potential for impact. Our determination of small numbers is based on the number of sea otters taken and not the number of times a sea otter may be taken.
The northern end of the seismic project areas extends beyond the range of the sea otter. To determine the most northern range for sea otters, all observations in middle and upper Cook Inlet proper (as defined by areas north of Point Pogibshi and east of Chinitna Point) reported during sea otter surveys or as incidental sightings during Steller's eider (Larned 2004, 2006) and beluga whale surveys (Rugh et al. 2006, Goetz et al. 2012) were compiled. To reduce the influence of extralimital sightings, a minimum convex polygon containing 95 percent of sea otter sightings was created, excluding 5 percent of sightings with the greatest distance to the centroid. A buffer area was expanded outside the project areas to show the farthest distances at which the two seismic surveys could ensonify areas in the range of sea otters at the 160-dB level. The buffer areas differed for Apache and SAE based on the size of their gun arrays. Apache proposed to use a 2,400-cubic-inch array, while SAE proposed to use a 1,760-cubic-inch array. The estimated buffer for Apache's project area was 9.5 km (5.9 mi), while SAE's buffer area was 4.75 km (2.9 mi).
The length of coastline that intersected the Apache project area and the corresponding buffer were measured to estimate the length of coastline along which otters are expected to occur and may be affected by the seismic surveys. Applying the estimated density of 12.79 otters per km of coastline to the length of the coastline (27.5 km; 17.1 mi) yields a final estimate of approximately 351 otters that could be taken (12.79 × 27.5 = 351; estimated 95 percent CI from 178 to 524 otters).
In addition, we estimated the total number of incidental takes of otters based on Apache's description of survey time that would be spent in each quadrant of the survey area. We calculated that approximately 19.25 percent of these surveys would occur within the probable range of sea otters in Cook Inlet and within 9.5 km (5.9 mi) of the coast, where sea otters are most likely to be found and could be affected by the seismic surveys. The estimated total time spent in these areas was approximately 3.27 survey days.
The length of coastline that intersected the SAE project area, but did not overlap with Apache seismic surveys, was buffered 4.75 km (2.95 mi) based on farthest distances at which seismic surveys are predicted to ensonify an area using a model developed for Cook Inlet by Collins et al. (2007). SAE's estimated total length of Cook Inlet coastline where sea otters may be affected by the seismic surveys was 55.72 km (34.6 mi). Applying the estimated density of 12.79 otters per km of coastline to the length of the coastline for SAE's longer length of coastline than Apache's yields an estimated 713 otters that could possibly be taken (55.72 × 12.79 = 712.5; estimated 95 percent CI from 362 to 1,064 otters).
We further estimated the total number of takes for the duration of SAE's project based on SAE's description of surveys. For this project we calculated approximately 31.6 percent of SAE's surveys would occur in the sea otter range in Cook Inlet and within 4.75 km (2.95 mi) of the coast. We estimated the total time the seismic project would spend in the calculated otter range was approximately 10.1 survey days. Due to the slow rate of vessel speed and the planned layout of survey transects, the length of the coastline affected each day would be less than the total length of coastline within the SAE project area. To calculate the maximum number of otters that could be taken per day, we calculated the maximum length of impacted shoreline per day, times density of otters per linear km of shoreline. The maximum shoreline impact in a day would occur from a 12-km (7.46-mi) transect parallel to shore. With buffers to allow for sound attenuation, a total of 21.5 km (13.4 mi) maximum could be affected each day (4.75 + 12 + 4.75 = 21.5 km). An adjustment was made for the length of the coastline ensonified each day by SAE because, unlike the Apache seismic project, the SAE survey area is large enough that seismic ensonification would not affect the entire section of coastline within the SAE project area and would ensonify only a portion of the coastline at one time. For SAE, allowing one take per otter per survey day and an estimated density of 12.76 otters per km, the maximum estimated daily take of otters is 275 (21.5 × 12.79 = 275). We estimated that the total number of takes after 10.1 survey days would be 2,778 takes (10.1 × 275 = 2,778; estimated 95 percent CI 1,412–4,145) would occur.
The Service determined that the BlueCrest activities most likely to result in the take of sea otters, as defined under the MMPA, are conductor pipe driving (CPD) and vertical seismic profiling (VSP). These activities will generate noise levels in the water that may cause short-term, temporary, nonlethal, but biologically significant changes in behavior to sea otters that the Service considers to be Level B take by disturbance under the MMPA. Other proposed activities, such as rig towing, noise generated from routine rig activities, routine boat traffic, and periodic air traffic were considered to have a limited potential for disturbance leading to Level B take. Adherence to specified operating conditions will ensure that take does not occur. The Service made these determinations, in part, based on information provided in the application materials provided by BlueCrest, including the application's Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
The proposed BlueCrest activities, previously discussed in detail, will primarily occur in a limited area around the
In 2013, an area of 210 m
The Service estimated the number of sea otters per day in a Zone of Impact (ZOI) by multiplying the number of sea otters observed per day in the deepwater pump observation area by the relative size of the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) ZOI of the CPD and VSP. For example, the VSP ZOI is 19.2 km
BlueCrest will use a Delmar D62–22 diesel impact hammer to drive the 76.2-centimeter (30-inch) conductor pipe that was acoustically measured earlier in Cook Inlet (Blackwell 2005). These measurements found that noise in the water of approximately 190 dB re 1 μPa extended to about 60 meters (200 feet) from the source, and noise in the water of approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa extended to about 250 meters (820 feet) from the source. Noise in the water of approximately 160 dB re 1 μPa extended to just less than 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles). Based on this, the associated Zone of Impact (ZOI) (area ensonified by noise >160 dB re 1 μPa) is 11.3 square kilometers (4.4 square miles) for the CPD estimate.
Noise levels during Buccaneer VSP operations at the Cosmopolitan #1 site were measured in July 2013 (Illingworth and Rodkin 2013). Measurements indicated that the 11.8-liter (720-cubic-inch) airgun array used during the operation produced noise levels exceeding 160 dB re 1 µPa out to a distance of approximately 2,470 meters (8,100 feet). Based on these results, the associated ZOI for this VSP estimate is 19.2 square kilometers (7.4 square miles).
This method for estimating take differs from that used for activities proposed by Apache and SAE. Due to the relatively stationary nature of the BlueCrest activities, as well as the distance from shore, the Service determined that utilizing an estimated density of sea otters based on linear coastline, or based on density of otters in the overall area, did not provide a reasonable estimate of potential takes for the BlueCrest project. Both of those methods provided what the Service considered to be unreasonably low estimates of take. The method the Service adopted for this proposed IHA is most likely an overestimate of take.
In conclusion, for the two seismic operations occurring in Cook Inlet, Apache is estimated to have approximately 1,150 takes of 351 otters, while SAE is estimated to have approximately 2,778 takes of 713 otters; there may be some overlap of impact areas. In addition, Level B take from the BlueCrest activities is estimated to be 332. The total number of otters affected is likely to be 351 + 713 + 332 = 1,396 or less. The Service believes all anticipated takes would be nonlethal harassment involving short-term, temporary changes in behavior (Level B harassment). The Service considers 1,396 sea otters, approximately 8 percent of the 18,297 sea otters estimated to occur in the Southcentral Alaska stock (USFWS 2014), to be a small number. See Table 4 for summary of takes.
As described in greater detail previously, the oil and gas exploration activities associated with these proposed IHAs are two seismic surveys and one drilling operation. The primary potential impacts to sea otters, and other marine species, are associated with high-energy impulsive sound levels produced by these activities. However, other potential impacts are also possible to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance, discharges, or an oil spill.
Since sea otters typically inhabit nearshore marine areas, shoreline length is a readily available metric that can be used to quantify sea otter habitat. The total length of shoreline within the range of the Southcentral Alaska stock of northern sea otters is approximately 2,575 km (1,600 mi), of which 540 km (335.5 mi) are located within Cook Inlet. Of that, the total length of shoreline for the proposed activities is approximately 84 km (52.2 mi), which is a small percentage of the total shoreline habitat available to the Southcentral sea otter stock.
In addition to the disturbances outlined above to sea otter habitat from noise, these activities could affect sea otter habitat in the form of impacts to prey species. The primary prey species for sea otters are sea urchins, abalone, clams, mussels, crabs, and squid (Tinker and Estes 1999). When preferential prey are scarce, otters will also eat kelp crabs, clams, turban snails, octopuses, barnacles, sea stars, scallops, rock oysters, fat innkeeper worms, and chitons (Riedman and Estes 1990). Thus, the nearshore habitats where sea otters forage and support these species are of utmost importance to Cook Inlet sea otters.
Little research has been conducted on the effects of seismic operations on invertebrates (Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2012). Christian et al. (2003) concluded that there were no obvious effects from seismic signals on crab behavior and no significant effects on the health of adult crabs. Pearson et al. (1994) had previously found no effects of seismic signals upon crab larvae for exposures as close as 1 m (3.3 ft) from the array, or for mean sound pressure as high as 231 dB re 1 µPa. Squid and other invertebrate species have complex statocysts (Nixon and Young 2003) that resemble the otolith organs of fish that may allow them to detect sounds (Budelmann 1992). Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2012) concluded that invertebrates are sensitive to local water movements and to low-frequency particle accelerations generated by sources in their close vicinity.
The potential direct habitat impact by the BlueCrest drilling operation is limited to the actual drill-rig footprint defined as the area occupied and enclosed by the drill-rig legs. The jack-up rig will temporarily disturb up to two offshore locations in upper Cook Inlet, where the wells are proposed to be drilled. Bottom disturbance would occur in the area where the three legs of the rig would be set down and where the actual well would be drilled. The jack-up drill rig footprint would occupy three steel piles at 14 m (46 ft) diameter. The well casing would be a 76-cm (30-in) diameter pipe extending from the
The drill rig will operate under an APDES general permit for wastewater discharges. This permit authorizes discharges from oil and gas extraction facilities engaged in exploration under the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435). Twelve effluents are authorized for discharge into Cook Inlet once discharge limits set by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation have been met. The authorized discharges include drilling fluids and drill cuttings, deck drainage, sanitary waste, domestic waste, blowout preventer fluid, boiler blowdown, fire control system test water, uncontaminated ballast water, bilge water, excess cement slurry, mud cuttings cement at sea floor, and completion fluids. The drill rig will also be authorized under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Vessel General Permit for deck washdown and runoff, gray water, and gray water mixed with sewage discharges. Drilling wastes include drilling fluids, known as mud, rock cuttings, and formation waters. Drilling wastes (non-hydrocarbon) will be discharged to the Cook Inlet under the approved APDES general permit.
Drilling wastes (hydrocarbon) will be delivered to an onshore permitted location for disposal. BlueCrest will conduct an Environmental Monitoring Study of relevant hydrographic, sediment hydrocarbon, and heavy metal data from surveys conducted before and during drilling mud disposal and at least 1 year after drilling operations cease in accordance with the APDES general permit for discharges of drilling muds and cuttings.
Non-drilling wastewater includes deck drainage, sanitary waste, domestic waste, blowout preventer fluid, boiler blowdown, fire control test water, bilge water, noncontact cooling water, and uncontaminated ballast water. Non-drilling wastewater will be discharged into Cook Inlet under the approved APDES general permit or delivered to an onshore permitted location for disposal. Mud cuttings will be constantly tested. Hydrocarbon-contaminated muds will be hauled offsite. Solid waste (e.g., packaging, domestic trash) will be classified, segregated, and labeled as general, universal, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act exempt or nonexempt waste. Solid waste will be stored in containers at designated accumulation areas until it can be packaged and transported to an approved onshore disposal facility. Hazardous wastes should not be generated as a result of this project. However, if any hazardous wastes are generated, they will be temporarily stored in an onboard satellite accumulation area and then transported offsite for disposal at an approved facility.
Discharging drill cuttings or other liquid waste streams generated by the drilling rig—even in permitted amounts—could potentially affect marine mammal habitat. Toxins could persist in the water column, which could have an impact on marine mammal prey species. However, despite a considerable amount of investment in research on exposures of marine mammals to organochlorines or other toxins, no marine mammal deaths in the wild can be conclusively linked to the direct exposure to such substances (O'Shea 1999).
Drilling muds and cuttings discharged to the seafloor can lead to localized increased turbidity and increase in background concentrations of barium and occasionally other metals in sediments and may affect lower trophic organisms. Drilling muds are composed primarily of bentonite (clay), and the toxicity is, therefore, low. Heavy metals in the mud may be absorbed by benthic organisms, but studies have shown that heavy metals do not bio-magnify in marine food webs (Neff et al. 1989). Effects on benthic communities are nearly always restricted to a zone within about 100 to 150 m (328 to 492 ft) of the discharge, where cuttings accumulations are greatest. Discharges and drill cuttings could impact fish by displacing them from the affected area. No water quality impacts are anticipated from permitted discharges that would negatively affect habitat for Cook Inlet sea otters.
The probability of an oil spill from the proposed activities is low. Potential sources would be a release from a support vessel or an incident associated with BlueCrest's exploratory drilling (while the target of that drilling is natural gas, there is still a remote possibility of an oil spill). An oil spill or unpermitted discharge is an illegal act; IHAs do not authorize takes of sea otters caused by illegal or unpermitted activities.
If an oil spill did occur, the most likely impact upon sea otters would be mortality due to exposure to and ingestion of spilled oil. Also, contamination of sea otter habitat, their invertebrate prey, and prey habitat would most likely result in a range of impacts ranging from sublethal to lethal, depending on a wide variety of factors. Spill response activities are not likely to disturb the prey items of sea otters sufficiently to cause more than minor effects. Spill response activities could cause sea otters to avoid contaminated habitat that is being cleaned.
Based on the preceding discussion of potential types and likelihood of impacts to sea otters, their prey, and habitat, the Service anticipates that the proposed activities are not likely to cause more than negligible, short-term, and temporary impacts to a small number of sea otters and to a small fraction of sea otter habitat.
According to the IHA applications, Apache, SAE, and BlueCrest have contacted all potentially affected subsistence communities, and the communities have expressed no concerns regarding the potential impacts upon the availability of sea otters for subsistence use (see proposed EAs at
Holders of an IHA must use methods and conduct activities in a manner that minimizes to the greatest extent practicable adverse impacts on sea otters, their habitat, and on the availability of sea otters for subsistence uses. Adaptive management approaches, such as temporal or spatial limitations in response to the presence of sea otters in a particular place or time or the occurrence of sea otters engaged in a particularly sensitive activity (such as feeding), must be used to avoid or minimize interactions with sea otters, and subsistence users of these resources.
We require holders of an IHA to cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration activities on sea otters. The following mitigation measures are proposed to be included in the individual IHAs.
Operating conditions for operational and support vessels:
• Operational and support vessels must be staffed with trained and qualified observers to alert crew of the presence of sea otters and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
• Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid harassment to sea otters when a vessel is operating near these animals.
• Vessels must reduce speed and maintain a distance of 100 m (328 ft) from all sea otters when practicable.
• Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members of a group of sea otters from other members of the group.
• When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to sea otters.
• All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated subsistence hunting for sea otters as determined through community consultations.
• We may require a monitor on the site of the activity or onboard drillships, drill rigs, support vessels, aircraft, or vehicles to monitor the impacts of an activity on sea otters.
Operating conditions for aircraft:
• Operators of support aircraft must, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum distance possible from sea otters.
• Fixed-wing aircraft must operate at an altitude no lower than 91 m (300 ft) in the vicinity of sea otters.
• Rotary winged aircraft (helicopters) must operate at an altitude no lower than 305 m (1,000 ft) in the vicinity of sea otters.
• When weather conditions do not safely allow the required minimum altitudes stipulated above, such as during severe storms or when cloud cover is low, aircraft may be operated at lower altitudes.
• When aircraft are operated at altitudes below the required minimum altitudes, the operator must avoid known sea otter locations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly over these areas.
• Aircraft routes must be planned to minimize any potential conflict with active or anticipated sea otter subsistence hunting activity as determined through community consultations.
Offshore seismic surveys:
Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the production of pulsed underwater sounds with sound source levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa will be required to establish and monitor acoustic exclusion and disturbance zones and implement adaptive mitigation measures as follows:
• Monitor zones. Establish and monitor with trained and qualified observers an acoustically verified disturbance zone surrounding seismic source arrays where the received level will be ≥ 180 dB re 1 μPa and an acoustically verified exclusion zone surrounding seismic source arrays where the received level will be ≥ 190 dB re 1 μPa.
• Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun testing, use the following ramp-up procedures to allow marine mammals to depart the disturbance zone before seismic surveying begins.
○ Visually monitor the disturbance zone and adjacent waters for sea otters for at least 30 minutes before initiating ramp-up procedures. If no sea otters are detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the disturbance zone for marine mammals.
○ Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms of energy output (dB) and volume (cubic inches).
○ Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes, until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.
• Power down/Shutdown. Immediately power down or shutdown the seismic source array and/or other acoustic sources whenever one or more sea otters are sighted close to or within the area delineated by the 180 dB re 1 μPa disturbance zone. If the power down operation cannot reduce the received sound pressure level to 160 dB re 1 μPa or less, the operator must immediately shut down the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources.
• Emergency shutdown. If observations are made or credible reports are received that one or more sea otters are within the area of the seismic survey and are indicating acute distress, such as any injury due to seismic noise, the seismic airgun array will be immediately shutdown and the Service contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and approval by the Service.
Holders of an IHA will be required to:
• Maintain trained and qualified onsite observers to carry out monitoring programs for sea otters necessary for initiating adaptive mitigation responses.
• Place trained and qualified observers on board all operational and support vessels to alert crew of the presence of sea otters to initiate adaptive mitigation responses and to carry out specified monitoring activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan necessary to evaluate the impact of authorized activities on sea otters and the subsistence use of sea otters.
• Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration activities on sea otters.
Holders of an IHA must keep the Service informed on the progress of authorized activities by:
• Notifying the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of activities.
• Providing weekly progress reports of authorized activities noting any significant changes in operating state and or location.
• Notifying the Service within 48 hours of ending activity.
Holders of an IHA must report, on a weekly basis, observations of sea otters during project activities. Information within the observation report will include, but is not limited to:
• Date, time, and location of each sighting.
• Number, sex, and age (if determinable).
• Observer name, company name, vessel name or aircraft number, letter of authorization number, and contact information.
• Weather, visibility, and sea conditions at the time of observation.
• Estimated distance from the animal or group when initially sighted, at closest approach, and end of the encounter.
• Industry activity at time of sighting and throughout the encounter. If a seismic survey, record the estimated ensonification zone where animals are observed.
• Behavior of animals at initial sighting, any change in behavior during the observation period, and distance from Industry activity associated with those behavioral changes.
• Detailed description of the encounter.
• Duration of the encounter.
• Duration of any behavioral response (e.g., diving, swimming, splashing, etc.).
• Mitigation actions taken.
Holders of an IHA must report to the Service within 24 hours:
• Any incidental lethal take or injury of a sea otter due to project activities; and
• Observations of sea otters within prescribed disturbance mitigation monitoring zones.
The results of monitoring efforts identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must be submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of the expiration date of the IHA.
The report must include, but is not limited to, the following information:
• A summary of monitoring effort including: Total hours, areas/distances, and distribution of sea otters through the project area of each rig, vessel, and aircraft.
• Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability of sea otters by specified monitoring.
• Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of sea otter sightings in relation to date, location, sea conditions, and operational state.
• Estimates of take based on the number of animals encountered/km of vessel and aircraft operations by behavioral response (no response, moved away, dove, etc.), and animals encountered per day by behavioral response for stationary drilling operations.
• Raw data in electronic format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) as specified by the Service in consultation with Industry representatives.
• Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect detectability).
• Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state (firing, powered down, or shut-down).
• Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state.
• Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun activity state.
• Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun activity state.
The Service proposes the following findings regarding this action:
For small take analysis, the statute and legislative history do not expressly require a specific type of numerical analysis, leaving the determination of “small” to the agency's discretion. Factors considered in our small numbers determination include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The mitigation measures outlined above are intended to minimize the number of sea otters that may be disturbed by the proposed activity. Any impacts on individuals are expected to be limited to Level B harassment and to be of short-term duration. No take by injury or death is anticipated or authorized. Should the Service determine, based on the monitoring and reporting to be conducted throughout the survey activities, that the effects are greater than anticipated, the authorization may be modified, suspended, or revoked.
The Service finds that any incidental “take by harassment” that may result from this proposed seismic survey cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and would, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the stock. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including: (1) The biological and behavioral characteristics of the species; (2) the most recent information on distribution and abundance of sea otters within the area of the proposed activity; (3) the potential sources of short-term disturbance during the proposed activity; and (4) the potential response of sea otters to this short-term disturbance. In addition, we conducted a thorough review of material supplied by the applicants, information from other operators in Cook Inlet, our files and datasets, data acquired from NMFS, and published reference materials. We
Limited evidence (Riedman 1983, 1984) suggests that sea otters are not particularly sensitive to or adversely affected by sound. Responses of sea otters to disturbance would most likely be diving and/or swimming away from the sound source, which may entail the temporary, but not sustained, interruption of foraging, breeding, resting, or other natural behaviors. Thus, although 1,396 sea otters (approximately 8 percent of the population) are estimated to be potentially taken (i.e., potentially disturbed) by Level B harassment by means of exposure to sound levels of 160dB re 1 mPa or greater but less than 190 dB for the duration of the project, we do not expect that this type of harassment would result in adverse effects on the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Our finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated through this authorization process. These authorizations establish monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed activities, as well as mitigation measures designed to minimize interactions with, and impacts to, sea otters.
We find that the anticipated harassment caused by the proposed activities would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of sea otters for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of the proposed activities and the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities and patterns, as reported through the MTRP, in the proposed project area, as well as the applicants' consultation with potentially affected subsistence communities. More information can be found on our Web site at
The Service finds that the proposed activities will have a negligible impact on small numbers of sea otters in Southcentral Alaska and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the stock for subsistence uses. Further, we have prescribed permissible methods of take, means to have the least practicable impact on the stock and its habitat, and monitoring requirements.
We have prepared Environmental Assessments (EA) in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have concluded that approval and issuance of these authorizations for the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level B harassment of small numbers of northern sea otters (
The proposed activities will occur entirely within the range of the Southcentral Alaska stock of the northern sea otter, which is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 [Endangered Species Act and Subsistence Uses in Alaska (Supplement to Secretarial Order 3206)], Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal Consultation and Policy), Department of the Interior Memorandum of January 18, 2001 (Alaska Government-to-Government Policy), the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 28, 1994, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a Government to Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Natives Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for listed species, to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available to Alaska Natives.
We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes. Through the IHA process identified in the MMPA, Industry presents a communication process, culminating in a Plan of Cooperation (POC), if warranted, with the Native communities most likely to be affected and engages these communities in numerous informational meetings.
Through various interactions and partnerships, we have determined that the issuance of these IHAs is appropriate. We are open to discussing ways to continually improve our coordination and information exchange, including through the IHA/POC process, as may be requested by Tribes or other Native groups.
The Service proposes to issue BlueCrest Energy, Inc., Apache Alaska Corporation, and SAExploration, Inc., LLC, individual IHAs for the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by Level B harassment of small numbers of northern sea otters (
The final IHA for each applicant will also incorporate the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this proposal. The applicants will be expected and required to implement and fully comply with those requirements. These IHAs will not authorize the intentional take of northern sea otters, nor take by injury or death.
If the nature or level of activity changes or exceeds that described in this proposal and in the individual applications for IHAs, or the nature or level of take exceeds that projected in this proposal, the Service will reevaluate its findings. The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke these authorizations if the findings are not accurate or the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described herein are not being met.
The Service requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning these proposed IHAs. Consistent with section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA, we are opening the comment period on this proposed authorization for 30 days (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for Federal Acknowledgment of Tribes. This information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076–0104, which expires August 31, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395–5806 or you may send an email to:
R. Lee Fleming, (202) 513–7650.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs held listening sessions in July and August 2013 and consultation sessions in July and August 2014 to receive feedback on ways to improve the Department's process for acknowledging an Indian tribe, as set forth in 25 CFR 83. The Assistant Secretary is currently in the process of revising the process for acknowledging an Indian tribe; however, this request for extension for this information collection request does not include the suggestions and feedback from the listening sessions and consultations. To not stall or delay potential petitioners that may want to submit this information, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is requesting an extension of the approval for the information collection conducted under 25 CFR 83.
The information collection is conducted under 25 CFR 83, to establish whether a petitioning group has the characteristics necessary to be acknowledged as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Federal recognition makes the group eligible for benefits from the Federal Government. Approval for this collection expires August 31, 2014. Three forms are used as part of this information collection.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations for three positions on the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (Board). The Board provides advice concerning the management, protection, and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands administered by the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department of Agriculture, through the U.S. Forest Service.
Nominations must be post marked or submitted to the address listed below no later than October 14, 2014.
All mail sent via the U.S. Postal Service should be sent as follows: Division of Wild Horses and Burros, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134 LM, Attn: Sarah Bohl, WO 260, Washington, DC 20240. All mail and packages that are sent via FedEx or UPS should be addressed as follows: Division of Wild Horses and Burros, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134 LM, Attn: Sarah Bohl, Washington, DC 20003. You may also send a fax to Sarah Bohl at 202–912–7182, or email her at
Sarah Bohl, Wild Horse and Burro Program Specialist, 202–912–7263. 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. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Members of the Board serve without compensation. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business, Board and subcommittee members engaged in Board or subcommittee business, approved by the Designated Federal Official (DFO), may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in government service under Section 5703 of Title 5 of the United States Code. Nominations for a term of 3 years are needed to represent the following categories of interest:
Public Interest (with special knowledge about protection of wild horses and burros, management of wildlife, animal husbandry, or natural resource management). The Board will meet one to four times annually. The DFO may call additional meetings in connection with special needs for advice. Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Board. Nominations will not be accepted without a complete resume. The following information must accompany all nominations for the individual to be considered for a position:
1. The position(s) for which the individual wishes to be considered;
2. The individual's first, middle, and last name;
3. Business address and phone number;
4. Home address and phone number;
5. Email address;
6. Present occupation/title and employer;
7. Education: (colleges, degrees, major field of study);
8. Career Highlights: Significant related experience, civic and professional activities, elected offices (include prior advisory committee experience or career achievements related to the interest to be represented). Attach additional pages, if necessary;
9. Qualifications: Education, training, and experience that qualify the individual to serve on the Board;
10. Experience or knowledge of wild horse and burro management;
11. Experience or knowledge of horses or burros (Equine health, training, and management);
12. Experience in working with disparate groups to achieve collaborative solutions (e.g., civic organizations, planning commissions, school boards, etc.);
13. Identification of any BLM permits, leases, or licenses held by the individual or his or her employer;
14. Indication of whether the individual is a federally registered lobbyist; and
15. Explanation of interest in serving on the Board.
At least one letter of reference sent from special interests or organizations the individual may represent, including, but not limited to, business associates, friends, co-workers, local, State, and/or Federal government representatives, or members of Congress should be included along with any other information that is relevant to the individual's qualifications.
As appropriate, certain Board members may be appointed as special government employees. Special government employees serve on the Board without compensation, and are subject to financial disclosure requirements in the Ethics in Government Act and 5 CFR part 2634. Nominations are to be sent to the address listed under
43 CFR 1784.4–1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming, intends to establish an overnight camping fee at Corral Creek Campground within the North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA).
Comments on the proposed fee changes must be received or postmarked by November 28, 2014 and include a legible full name and address. Effective February 25, 2015, the BLM will initiate fee collection at Corral Creek Campground, unless the BLM publishes a
Documents may be reviewed at the Rawlins Field Office, 1300 North Third Street, P.O. Box 2407, Rawlins, WY 82301–2407. Written comments may be mailed or delivered to the same address; faxed to 307–328–4224; or emailed to
John Russell, Project Manager, at the address above or phone (307) 328–4252. The business plan and information concerning the proposed fee schedule are available at
The planning area for the 5,060-acre North Platte River Recreation Area Management Plan (Plan) includes parcels of public land within the SRMA boundary from the Prospect Creek confluence to Seminoe Reservoir covering 110 river miles. Approximately 10 percent of the surface area is public land with the remainder predominantly private and State lands. The Corral Creek Campground is within the SRMA approximately 33 miles northeast of the Encampment, Wyoming, and is a popular recreation site for both day-use and overnight visits. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), 16 U.S.C. 6801–6814, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish, modify, charge and collect recreation fees at specified categories of Federal recreation lands and waters. The REA also contains specific provisions addressing public involvement when establishing recreation fees. The authority of the Secretary to carry out these provisions expires 11 years after December 8, 2005 (16 U.S.C. 6809 amended). The public involvement provisions of the REA include a requirement that Recreation Resource Advisory Committees or councils be given opportunities to make recommendations regarding the establishment of recreation fees. In Wyoming, the Recreation Action Team (REACT) fulfills the public involvement requirements of the REA. REACT is comprised of State and Federal land management agencies that meet regularly to discuss issues of interest to recreationists in the State. REACT also reviews all fee increase proposals on all State and Federal Government sites in Wyoming. The Corral Creek Campground qualifies as a site where visitors can be charged an Expanded Amenity Fee in accordance with REA criteria at 43 U.S.C. 6802(g)(2). The BLM completed the North Platte River Recreation Area Management Plan and Environmental Assessment Decision Record on September 24, 2013, and fulfilled REA requirements, involved the public, and gathered input on the fee proposal and alternatives.
The Plan addresses the following: (1) Visitor use density; (2) River access issues and the establishment of a new campground; (3) Pursuit of a campground fee and improvements; (4) Special Recreation Permit allocations and limits; and (5) Resource impacts caused by peak visitor use on public lands along the North Platte River. Mitigation and reclamation for approved projects in the Plan have been designed to positively benefit social and environmental conditions. The BLM has already analyzed the potential impacts of implementing a campground fee, and considered necessary mitigations in the North Platte River Recreation Area Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Therefore, establishment of the campground fee would be an administrative action implementing the Sept. 24, 2013 Decision Record.
In accordance with BLM policy, the Rawlins Field Office has prepared a business plan that explains the fee collection process for the Corral Creek Campground and how the fees would be used. The proposed fee structure includes the implementation of a $10 fee for each overnight stay per campsite at the campground. No fees would be charged for extra vehicles. New fees would be used to supplement the appropriated recreation maintenance and operations budget and diversify funding for watershed restoration, habitat, soils, environmental interpretation/education and other projects which would benefit the Corral Creek Recreation Site. Within the SRMA, the BLM has charged Expanded Amenity fees of $10 for overnight
A fee collection station, including envelopes and a fee tube, would be located at the trailhead and day-use parking area adjacent to an existing interpretive kiosk that would display the fee schedule and supplementary rules. The fee receipt must be prominently displayed at each occupied site. Those holding the America the Beautiful—The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass (i.e., the Interagency Annual Pass, Interagency Senior Pass, Interagency Access Pass and Interagency Volunteer Pass), the National Parks Pass with golden eagle hologram and the Golden Eagle, Golden Age or Golden Access passports would be entitled to a fee reduction. The pass type and number would be required to be written on the fee envelope.
The fee schedule and business plan are available at the Rawlins Field Office. Public comments submitted for this fee proposal, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review in their entirety after the 90-day comment period closes at the Rawlins Field Office during regular business hours, 7:45 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for holidays.
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 may 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.
The proposal of an overnight camping fee at Corral Creek Campground was analyzed in the 2013 Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOI–BLM–WY–030–2013–0094–EA). This EA included development of recreational infrastructure to meet current BLM fee site standards and proposed the pursuit of a fee program at Corral Creek Campground.
16 U.S.C. 6803(b).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
We (National Park Service) are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below. The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting renewal of a currently approved collection (OMB Control Number 1024–0224). This Programmatic Review and Clearance Process for NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys simplifies and streamlines the information collection requests to OMB in a manner that allows the NPS to submit and request up to five times as many requests per year as we would through the regular submission route. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as a part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this ICR. A Federal 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.
To ensure that your comments on this ICR are considered, OMB must receive them on or before September 29, 2014.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email to
Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Review Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting a one year extension for the Programmatic Review and Clearance Process for NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys (OMB Control Number 1024–0224). The request to extend the current expiration date (August 31, 2014) for one year is for the purpose of revising the current Pool of Known Questions that serves as a primary component of this process. This request is also based upon requests from human dimensions and natural resource professionals that we update the current list of questions and topic areas that are more than 20 years old. This extension is needed to work collaboratively with other researchers in this field to increase the Pool of Known Questions usability as an effective tool in this process. During the extension we will continue to submit collections for FY15 (based upon the currently approved documents) and we will also host a series of workshops to facilitate the revision of the topic areas and questions.
On May 27, 2014, we published a
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before September 29, 2014.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB—OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Renaud at
Comments:
On April 17, 2014, we published in the
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–510 and 731–TA–1245 (Final) under sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value imports from China of calcium hypochlorite, provided for in subheadings 2828.10.00, 3808.94.50, or 3808.99.95 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
Calcium hypochlorite has the general chemical formulation Ca(OCl)
Calcium hypochlorite is currently classifiable under the subheading 2828.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The subheading covers commercial calcium hypochlorite and other calcium hypochlorite. When tableted or blended with other materials, calcium hypochlorite may be entered under other tariff classifications, such as 3808.94.5000 and 3808.99.9500, which cover disinfectants and similar products. While the HTSUS subheadings, the CAS registry number, the U.S. EPA PC number, and the IMDG codes are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.”
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 22) granting joint motions to terminate the investigation based on settlement agreements. The investigation is terminated.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 24, 2014, based on a complaint filed on December 18, 2013, on behalf of Pragmatus Mobile, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia (“Pragmatus”). 79 FR 4173 (Jan. 24, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless devices, including mobile phones and tablets, by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,149,124 and 8,466,795. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Nokia Corporation of Espoo, Finland; and Nokia, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (collectively, “Nokia”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd of Seoul, Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “Samsung”); Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Sony Mobile Communications AB of Lund, Sweden; and Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively, “Sony”); ZTE Corporation of Guangdong, China; and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas (collectively, “ZTE”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations participated in the investigation.
On July 18, 2014, Pragmatus, Nokia, Sony, and ZTE jointly moved to terminate the investigation based upon a settlement reached by the parties (“the Nokia/Sony/ZTE motion”). On July 23, 2014, Pragmatus and Samsung also
On August 4, 2014, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 22) granting both motions. No petitions for review were filed.
After considering the subject ID and the relevant portions of the record, the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The Commission agrees with the ALJ that both motions comply with the Commission's rules for termination, and that the settlements do not adversely affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers. Accordingly, the investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 28, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeff Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 2600, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia, 20530; telephone: (703) 305–0470.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 29, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: Campus Program Grantees.
Other:
Abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 100 grantees (institutions of higher education) of the Campus Program whose eligibility is determined by statute. Campus Program grants may be used to enhance victim services and develop programs to prevent violent crimes against women on campuses. The Campus Program also enables institutions of higher education to develop and strengthen effective security and investigation strategies to combat violent crimes against women on campuses, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
OVW uses data from the information collection in different ways. OVW will use the information collected from Campus Program grantees to monitor their grant-funded activities. OVW will review each semi-annual progress report to monitor an individual grantee's performance, including the grant-funded activities, and to ensure that the goals and objectives set forth in applications for funding and award documents are met.
In addition, information collected from grantees will enable OVW to respond to statutory requirements to report to Congress on the effectiveness of grant-funded activities.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 29, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: Tribal Governments Program Grantees.
Other:
Abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 85 grantees of the Grants to Indian Tribal Governments Program (Tribal Governments Program), a grant program authorized by the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. This discretionary grant program is designed to enhance the ability of tribes to respond to violent crimes against Indian women, enhance victim safety, and develop education and prevention strategies. Eligible applicants are recognized Indian tribal governments or their authorized designees.
OVW uses data from the information collection in different ways. OVW will use the information collected from Tribal Governments Program grantees to monitor their grant-funded activities. OVW will review each semi-annual progress report to monitor an individual grantee's performance, including the grant-funded activities, and to ensure that the goals and objectives set forth in applications for funding and award documents are met. In addition, information collected from grantees will enable OVW to respond to statutory requirements to report to Congress on the effectiveness of grant-funded activities.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 29, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: State Coalitions Program Grantees
Other:
Abstract: The affected public includes the 88 grantees from the State Coalitions Program. The State Coalitions Program provides federal financial assistance to state coalitions to support the coordination of state victim services activities, and collaboration and coordination with federal, state, and local entities engaged in violence against women activities.
OVW uses data from the information collection in different ways. OVW will use the information collected from State Coalitions Program grantees to monitor their grant-funded activities. OVW will review each semi-annual progress report to monitor an individual grantee's performance, including the grant-funded activities, and to ensure that the goals and objectives set forth in applications for funding and award documents are met. In addition, information collected from grantees will enable OVW to respond to statutory requirements to report to Congress on the effectiveness of grant-funded activities.
5.
It is estimated that it will take the approximately 88 respondents (State Coalitions Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A State Coalitions Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 29, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: Safe Havens Program Grantees.
Other:
Abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 33 grantees of the Supervised Visitation Program who are States, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government. The Supervised Visitation Program provides an opportunity for communities to support the supervised visitation and safe exchange of children, by and between parents, in situations involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
OVW uses data from the information collection in different ways. OVW will use the information collected from Safe Havens Program grantees to monitor their grant-funded activities. OVW will review each semi-annual progress report to monitor an individual grantee's performance, including the grant-funded activities, and to ensure that the goals and objectives set forth in applications for funding and award documents are met. In addition, information collected from grantees will enable OVW to respond to statutory requirements to report to Congress on the effectiveness of grant-funded activities.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 29, 2014.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202–514–5430. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Primary: Tribal Coalitions Program Grantees.
Other:
Abstract: The affected public includes the 14 grantees from the Tribal Coalitions Program. The Tribal Coalitions Program grantees include Indian tribal governments that will support the development and operation of new or existing nonprofit tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions in Indian country. These grants provide funds to develop and operate nonprofit tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions in Indian country to address the unique issues that confront Indian victims. The Tribal Coalitions Program provides resources for organizing and supporting efforts to end violence against Indian women.
OVW uses data from the information collection in different ways. OVW will use the information collected from Tribal Coalitions Program grantees to monitor their grant-funded activities. OVW will review each semi-annual progress report to monitor an individual grantee's performance, including the grant-funded activities, and to ensure that the goals and objectives set forth in applications for funding and award documents are met. In addition, information collected from grantees will enable OVW to respond to statutory requirements to report to Congress on the effectiveness of grant-funded activities.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On August 26, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed consent decree fully resolves claims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against the Estate of F. Paul Meeuwenberg (“Estate”) and Richard A. Meeuwenberg, in his capacity as Representative of the Estate, (collectively “Settling Defendants”) for response costs and injunctive relief under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675, regarding the Grand Traverse Overall
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.00 (24 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
On August 29, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Application for Permanent Employment Certification,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 29, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at:
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to:
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for a revision to the Application for Permanent Employment Certification, Form ETA–9089, information collection. The form is used in DOL's employment-based immigration program by employers to request permission to bring foreign workers to the United States as immigrants and in the Department of Homeland Security's National Interest Waiver program by individuals applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement if the waiver is deemed to be in the national interest. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because of minor clarifications to some of the data respondents are to provide. Immigration and Nationality Act sections 203(b)(2), 203(b)(3), and 212(a)(5)(A) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
On August 29, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Steel Erection Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 29, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Steel Erection Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR part 1926, subpart R. The Standard contains information collection requirements to notify designated parties—especially steel erectors—that building materials, components, steel structures, and fall-protection equipment meet required criteria; and to ensure workers exposed to fall hazards receive specified training in the recognition and control of the hazards. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6(b)(7), and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of “Cognitive and Psychological Research.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section of this notice on or before October 28, 2014.
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202–691–5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202–691–7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' Behavioral Science Research Center (BSRC) conducts theoretical, applied, and evaluative research aimed at improving the quality of data collected and published by the Bureau. Since its creation in 1988, the BSRC has advanced the study of survey methods research, approaching issues of non-sampling error within a framework that draws heavily on the theories and methods of the cognitive, statistical, and social sciences. The BSRC research focuses primarily on the assessment of survey instrument design and survey administration, as well as on issues related to interviewer training, the interaction between interviewer and respondent in the interview process, and the usability of data-collection instruments by both interviewers and respondents. Improvements in these areas result in greater accuracy and response rates of BLS surveys, frequently reduce costs in training and survey administration, and further ensure the effectiveness of the Bureau's overall mission.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for “Cognitive and Psychological Research.” The purpose of this request for clearance by the BSRC is to conduct cognitive and psychological research designed to enhance the quality of the Bureau's data collection procedures and overall data management. The BLS is committed to producing the most accurate and complete data within the highest quality assurance guidelines. The BSRC was created to aid in this effort and it has demonstrated the effectiveness and value of its approach. Over the next few years, demand for BSRC consultation is expected to remain high as approaches are explored and tested for dealing with increasing nonresponse in key Bureau surveys. Moreover, as the use of web-based surveys continues to grow, so too will the need for careful tests of instrument design and usability, human-computer interactions, and the impact of multiple modes on data quality. The BSRC is uniquely equipped with both the skills and facilities to accommodate these demands.
The extension of the accompanying clearance package reflects an attempt to accommodate the increasing interest by BLS program offices and other agencies in the methods used, and the results obtained, by the BSRC. This package reflects planned research and development activities for FY2015 through FY2017, and its approval will enable the continued productivity of a state-of-the-art, multi-disciplinary program of behavioral science research to improve BLS survey methodology.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 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 also will become a matter of public record.
The Secretary of Labor is announcing the intent to renew a Federal Advisory Committee. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Secretary of Labor has determined that the renewal of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Users Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Commissioner of Labor Statistics by 29 U.S.C. 1 and 2. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
The Committee provides advice to the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the points of view of data users from various sectors of the U.S. economy, including the labor, business, research, academic and government communities, on matters related to the analysis, dissemination, and use of the Bureau's statistics, on its published reports, and on gaps between or the need for new Bureau statistics.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body to the BLS, on technical topics selected by the BLS.
The Committee is responsible for providing the Commissioner of Labor Statistics: (1) The priorities of data users; (2) suggestions concerning the addition of new programs, changes in the emphasis of existing programs or cessation of obsolete programs; and (3) advice on potential innovations in data analysis, dissemination and presentation. The Committee reports to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
The Committee will not exceed 20 members. Committee members are nominated by the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and approved by the Secretary of Labor. Membership of the Committee will represent a balance of expertise across a broad range of BLS program areas, including employment and unemployment statistics, occupational safety and health statistics, compensation measures, price indexes, and productivity measures; or other areas related to the subject matter of BLS programs. All committee members will have extensive research or practical experience using BLS data. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter will be filed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SGS North America, Inc., for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. SGS requests the addition of four test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
SGS currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: SGS North America, Inc., 620 Old Peachtree Road, Suwanee, Georgia 30024. A complete list of SGS's scope of recognition is available at
SGS submitted an application, dated May 28, 2014 (Exhibit 14–3—SGS Request for Expansion), to expand its recognition to include four additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in SGS's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
SGS submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent information, indicate that SGS can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these four test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of SGS's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant SGS's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Curtis-Straus LLC for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 15, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL) is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. CSL requests the addition of one test standard to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Curtis-Straus LLC, One Distribution Center Circle, Suite #1, Littleton, Massachusetts 01460. A complete list of CSL's scope of recognition is available at
CSL submitted an application, dated February 13, 2014 (Exhibit 14–1—CSL Expansion Application for AAMI ES 60601–1), to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standard found in CSL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
CSL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and the comparability analysis, indicate that CSL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant CSL's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS (IAPMO), for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this recognition.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 29, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that an NRTL test and certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace. NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for performing safety testing and certification of products used in the workplace. To
The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires OSHA to publish two notices in the
OSHA is providing notice that IAPMO is applying for recognition as an NRTL. According to public information (see
Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for the applicable test standards within the NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification. IAPMO applied for initial recognition as an NRTL on April 7, 2009. In its application, IAPMO requested recognition for six test standards, one site, and two supplemental programs (Exhibit 14–1—IAPMO Initial Application for Recognition). The following sections set forth the requested scope of recognition included in IAPMO's application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in IAPMO's application for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
The test standards listed above may be approved as U.S. test standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, the Agency may use the designations of the standards-developing organization for the test standards instead of the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard.
The current address of IAPMO's one site included in its application for recognition as an NRTL is: IAPMO EGS, 5001 E. Philadelphia Street, Ontario, California 91761. The NRTL Program requires that at least one of the recognized sites listed above have the capability to conduct the product testing in accordance with the appropriate test standard for the equipment or material being tested and certified.
The supplemental programs listed in IAPMO's application for recognition as an NRTL include:
Program 2: Acceptance of testing data from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents (for calibration services only).
OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough analysis of an NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. IAPMO's Ontario, California site has the capability to conduct testing and certification in accordance with requirements outlined in the test standard specifications for the test standards listed in Section II. A. above. OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of IAPMO's testing facilities on February 27 and 28, 2014. An overview of OSHA's assessment of the four requirements for recognition (i.e., capability, control procedures, independence, and creditable reports and complaint handling) are provided below.
Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of equipment or
• The IAPMO facility has adequate test areas, energy sources, and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
• IAPMO provided a detailed list of its testing equipment. Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
• IAPMO has detailed procedures for conducting testing, review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
• IAPMO has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance and calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for, or supporting laboratory activities.
• IAPMO has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical knowledge, and experience.
• IAPMO has an adequate quality-control system in place to conduct internal audits, as well as tracking and resolution of non-conformances.
OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the capabilities described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide controls and services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. These controls and services include procedures for identifying the listed or labeled equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its control procedures. OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated these capabilities through following:
• IAPMO has a quality-control manual and detailed procedures to address the steps involved to list and certify products.
• IAPMO has a registered certification mark.
• IAPMO has certification procedures to address the authorization of certifications and audits of factory facilities. The audits apply to both the initial evaluations and the follow-up inspections of manufacturers' facilities.
OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the control procedures described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested under the NRTL Program. OSHA has a policy for the independence of NRTLs that specifies the criteria used for determining whether an organization meets the above requirement (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph V). This policy contains a non-exhaustive list of relationships that would cause an organization to fail to meet the specified criteria. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its independence. OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated independence through the following:
• IAPMO is a privately owned organization, and OSHA found no information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under OSHA's independence policy.
• IAPMO shows that it has none of the relationships described above or any other relationship that could subject it to undue influence when testing for product safety.
Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated these capabilities through the following.
• IAPMO has detailed procedures describing the content of the test reports, and other detailed procedures describing the preparation and approval of these reports.
• IAPMO has procedures for recording, analyzing, and processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a fair manner.
OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the credible reports and complaint handling procedures described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation, as well as the results of the on-site assessment, indicate that IAPMO can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for its site located in Ontario, California. The OSHA staff, therefore, preliminarily recommended that the Assistant Secretary approve the application. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of IAPMO's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether IAPMO meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in IAPMO's application, including pertinent documents (e.g., exhibits) and all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of QAI Laboratories, LTD., for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this recognition.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 29, 2014.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that an NRTL approve (i.e., test and certify) certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace. NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for performing safety testing and certification of products used in the workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, NRTLs must meet the requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by OSHA that the NRTL has the capability to perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the NRTL's scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition of an NRTL by OSHA also allows employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires OSHA to publish two notices in the
OSHA is providing notice that QAI Laboratories, LTD., (QAI) is applying for recognition as an NRTL. According to public information (see
Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for the applicable test standards within the NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification. QAI applied for initial recognition as an NRTL on May 28, 2013. In its application, QAI requested recognition for three test standards, two sites, and one supplemental program (Exhibit 14–1—QAI Initial Application for Recognition). The following sections set forth the requested scope of recognition included in QAI's application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in QAI's application for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
The test standards listed above may be approved as U.S. test standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, the Agency may use the designations of the standards-developing organization for the test standards instead of the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard.
The addresses of QAI's sites included in its application for recognition as an NRTL are:
1. QAI Coquitlam, #16–211 Schoolhouse Street, Coquitlam, British Columbia, CANADA V3K 4X9; and
2. QAI Los Angeles, 8385 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
The NRTL Program requires that at least one of the recognized sites listed above have the capability to conduct the product-testing in accordance with the appropriate test standard for the equipment or material being tested and certified.
The supplemental program listed in QAI's application for recognition as an NRTL includes:
Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents (for calibration services only).
OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough analysis of an NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. One or more of the sites listed above have the capability to conduct testing and certification in accordance with requirements outlined in the test standard specifications for the test standards listed in Section II.A above. OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of QAI's testing facilities on February 25, 2014, at QAI Coquitlam and February 26, 2014, at QAI Los Angeles. An overview of OSHA's assessment of the four requirements for recognition (i.e., capability, control procedures, independence, and creditable reports and complaint handling) is provided below.
Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted, the NRTL must have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality-control programs) to perform appropriate testing. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its capabilities to perform test and certification activities. OSHA determined that QAI has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• The QAI facility has adequate test areas and energy sources, and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
• QAI provided a detailed list of its testing equipment. Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
• QAI has detailed procedures for conducting testing, review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
• QAI has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance and calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for, or supporting laboratory activities.
• QAI has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical knowledge, and experience.
• QAI has an adequate quality-control system in place to conduct internal audits, and track and resolve non-conformances.
OSHA's on-site assessment of QAI's facilities confirmed the capabilities described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, QAI addressed these
Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide controls and services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. These controls and services include procedures for identifying the listed or labeled equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its control procedures. OSHA determined that QAI has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• QAI has a quality-control manual and detailed procedures to address the steps involved to list and certify products.
• QAI has a registered certification mark.
• QAI has certification procedures to address the authorization of certifications and audits of factory facilities. The audits apply to both the initial evaluations and the follow-up inspections of manufacturers' facilities.
OSHA's on-site assessment of QAI's facilities confirmed the control procedures described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, QAI addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested under the NRTL Program. OSHA has a policy for the independence of NRTLs that specifies the criteria used for determining whether an organization meets the above requirement (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph V). This policy contains a non-exhaustive list of relationships that would cause an organization to fail to meet the specified criteria. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its independence. OSHA determined that QAI has demonstrated independence through the following:
• QAI is a privately owned organization, and OSHA found no information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under OSHA's independence policy.
• QAI shows that it has none of the relationships described above or any other relationship that could subject it to undue influence when testing for product safety.
Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA determined that QAI has demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
• QAI has detailed procedures describing the content of the test reports, and other detailed procedures describing the preparation and approval of these reports.
• QAI has procedures for recording, analyzing, and processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a fair manner.
OSHA's on-site assessment of QAI's facilities confirmed the creditable reports and complaint handling procedures described in its application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, QAI addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation, as well as the results of the on-site assessment, indicate that QAI can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL for both of its sites. The OSHA staff, therefore, preliminarily recommended that the Assistant Secretary approve the application. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of QAI's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether QAI meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension on or before the comment due date. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in QAI's application, including pertinent documents (e.g., exhibits), and all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N–2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments submitted to the docket in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary whether to grant QAI's application for recognition as an NRTL. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The renewal of recognition becomes effective on August 29, 2014.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as an NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted an application, dated December 13, 2011 (OSHA–2006–0028–0015—MET Expansion Application for UL 2202), to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff reviewed MET's application and other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to MET's application, go to
OSHA staff examined MET's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below.
OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standard, which OSHA determined is an appropriate test standard within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c):
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include those products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
The National Science Board's Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Wednesday, September 3, 2014, 12:00–1:00 p.m., EDT.
SCF chair's remarks, including approval of minutes of August 13 SCF meeting. SCF members will discuss facility synopses and the 2014 Annual Portfolio Review of facilities.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening line will be available. Members of the public must contact the Board Office (call 703–292–7000 or send an email message to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed Materials License No. SNM–2014 held by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to possess, inspect and store an initial core of special nuclear material (SNM) in the form of fresh fuel assemblies at TVA's Watts Bar site in Spring City, Tennessee. On August, 23, 2012, TVA submitted its renewal application for their SNM license to extend their license expiration. NRC has reviewed TVA's license renewal application and submittals, and has renewed TVA's license to expire on September 30, 2017.
August 29, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0115 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Marilyn Diaz, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–287–9068, email:
Pursuant to Section 2.106 of Title 10 of the
This license renewal complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter 1. Accordingly, this license renewal was issued on July 24, 2014, and is effective immediately.
The NRC has prepared a Safety Evaluation Report that documents the information that was reviewed and the NRC's conclusion In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” the details with respect to this action, including the SER and accompanying documentation and license, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within 60 calendar-days of publication of this Notice.
Direct comments and requests for copies of the subject form to the Agency Submitting Officer: Essie Bryant, Records Manager, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527.
Agency Submitting Officer: Essie Bryant, Records Manager, (202) 336–8563.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Healthcare & Insurance/Federal Employee Insurance Operations (FEIO), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) 3206–0230, Life Insurance 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. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 29, 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 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management 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.
Standard Form 2817 is used by Federal employees and assignees (those who have acquired control of an employee/annuitant's coverage through an assignment or “transfer” of the ownership of the life insurance). Clearance of this form for use by active Federal employees is not required according to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 98–615). The Public Burden Statement meets the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3). Therefore, only the use of this form by assignees, i.e. members of the public, is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Office of Personnel Management.
Cancelling of Council Meeting and rescheduling of Council Meetings.
The Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (Council) is cancelling the October 16, 2014 Council meeting and will hold the next Council meetings at the location shown below on the following dates and times:
• September 30 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
• October 28 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.
The Council is an advisory committee composed of representatives from Hispanic organizations and senior government officials. Along with its other responsibilities, the Council shall advise the Director of the Office of Personnel Management on matters involving the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of Hispanics in the Federal workforce. The Council is co-chaired by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA).
The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to present material to the Council at any of the meetings. The manner and time prescribed for presentations may be limited, depending upon the number of parties that express interest in presenting information.
Veronica E. Villalobos, Director for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Suite 5H35, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606–0020 FAX (202) 606–2183 or email at
Postal Service
Notice of modification to existing system of records.
The United States Postal Service® (Postal Service) is proposing to modify one Customer Privacy Act System of Records. These modifications are being made to implement a credentialing solution to establish and maintain verified, trusted digital identities for customers. Once verified, this solution will enhance customers' access to Postal Service personalized digital services.
These revisions will become effective without further notice on September 29, 2014 unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to the Privacy and Records Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 9431, Washington, DC 20260–1101. Copies of all written comments will be available at this address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Matthew J. Connolly, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy and Records Office, 202–268–8582 or
This notice is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish their amended systems of records in the
The Postal Service seeks to provide greater security for customers as they utilize the Postal Service's personalized, digital products and services. The Postal Service has 20 million credentialed customers but with minimal assurance of valid, trusted identity. By implementing enhanced credentialing capabilities, we can offer our customers identity verification as they seek to take advantage of personalized postal services online.
The System of Records 910.000 Identity & Document Verification Services is being modified to facilitate the verification of a customer's identity, either through online or in-person identity proofing, for certain USPS online services. This will implement a practical solution to establish and maintain verified digital identities for consumers.
Categories of individuals covered by the system will now encompass any customer who verifies his or her identity through the Postal Service's credentialing service, whether online or in person. With regard to an individual who verifies his or her identify in person, this section will also include the collection of employee logon information for auditing purposes. Purpose(s) will now reflect the credentialing service for customers who apply for that service. Categories of records in the system is being amended to delete a note regarding Social Security numbers and payment information. Although Social Security numbers will be collected and used for purposes of online credentialing, neither Social Security numbers nor payment information will be maintained in this SOR.
Lastly, the changes under retention and disposal will align the Postal Service with Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) guidance with retention times of the data maintained for credentialed customers. All records related to identity verification will be kept for 7.5 years, unless an individual requests the Postal Service retain the records longer.
The Postal Service is modifying one system of records listed below. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed modifications has been sent to Congress
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes changes in the existing systems of records as follows:
Identity and Document Verification Services
[CHANGE TO READ]
Customers who apply for identity and document verification services. Any customer who verifies his or her identity through USPS to access services.
[CHANGE TO READ]
3. Verification and payment information: Credit and/or debit card information or other account number, government issued ID type and number, verification question and answer, and payment confirmation code.
[CHANGE TO READ]
6. Transaction information: Clerk signature; employee logon; transaction type, date and time, location, source of transaction; product use and inquiries.
[ADD TEXT]
6. To verify a customer's identity to access services.
[CHANGE TO READ]
6. Records pertaining to identity verification are retained 7.5 years, to align with Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) guidance unless retained longer by request of the customer.
[RENUMBER REMAINING TEXT]
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to a proposal to [sic] offer a volume discount for the bulk purchase of aged reports within the category of Historical Research and Administrative Reports under NASDAQ Rule 7022.
(a) No Change.
(b) The charge to be paid by the purchaser of an Historical Research Report regarding a Nasdaq security that wishes to obtain a license to redistribute the information contained in the report to subscribers shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule:
(c) No change.
(d) No change.
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.
NASDAQ proposes to offer a volume discount for the bulk purchase of an existing report within the Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics category of Historical Research and Administrative Reports under subsection C of NASDAQ Rule 7022(b). The pricing schedule for Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics reports currently includes only short interest information.
NASDAQ is proposing to add a third tier of fees for Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics reports for the purchase and distribution of a full year of the twice-monthly report of short interest on NASDAQ provided that the individual reports are each aged a full year. NASDAQ has been requested to offer a volume discount for the distribution of short interest reports aged more than one year that Distributors can make available to Subscribers in annual sets of twenty-four reports. The existing reports will be delivered in annual sets via an acceptable medium where each of the individual reports is sent simultaneously.
NASDAQ has determined to assess a fee of $3,000 for access to the annual sets of aged reports of short interest on NASDAQ. This is less than a Distributor would pay to distribute twenty-four short interest reports that will constitute each annual set of reports because the data in the annual set will be aged at least one year and therefore will be less valuable to investors. In addition, unlike the existing fee tiers, the volume discount will not be indexed to the number of subscribers receiving the annual set of reports; all Distributors will pay the $3,000 fee regardless of the number of recipients to which they distribute it.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ believes that the proposed fee is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
Finally, NASDAQ believes that the proposed fee is also consistent with Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act,
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in an undue burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. As described above, the volume discount already exists in many forms, and it has not [sic] found to impose any burden on competition. In this case, NASDAQ does not believe the volume discount will impose any burden on competition. With respect to distributors, the proposal would reduce fees for all market participants that purchase and distribute the reports, therefore each participant should be positioned equally with respect to such distribution.
With respect to competitors or NASDAQ, the proposed volume discount does not impose any burden on competition. NASDAQ competitors that distribute similar data are equally-well positioned to offer a volume discount for similar data. To the extent that NASDAQ's proposed volume discount prompts competitors to offer volume discounts, this effect is pro-competitive and beneficial to investors.
Written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing 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 (“Act”)
The Government Securities Division (“GSD”) of FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Rulebook (the “Rules”) in order to establish an early unwind intraday charge to protect against the exposure that may result from intraday cash substitutions and early unwind of interbank allocations
In its filing with the Commission, FICC 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. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
GSD is proposing to amend its Rules in order to establish an early unwind intraday charge (“EUIC”)
On January 10, 2014, FICC filed advance notice SR–FICC–2014–801
As noted above, GSD is proposing to establish an EUIC
In connection with its review of its proposal to incorporate the underlying collateral pertaining to the GCF Repo® positions in the GSD's noon intraday participant CFR calculation, GSD discovered that there were instances where exposure to FICC arose as a result of certain cash substitutions or early unwind of interbank allocations. This is because the noon intraday underlying collateral pertaining to the GCF Repo® positions of impacted participants may exhibit a different risk profile than their same end-of-day (“EOD”)
In certain instances, cash substitutions, for repo and reverse repo positions and the early unwind of interbank allocations for reverse repo positions, could result in higher cash balances in the underlying collateral pertaining to GCF Repo® positions at noon intraday than the same EOD, and could present a potential under-margin condition because cash collateral is not margined. In addition, it is likely that the cash will be replaced by securities in the next GCF Repo® allocation of collateral. The under-margin condition will exist overnight because the VaR on the GCF Repo® collateral in the same EOD cycle will not be calculated until after Fedwire is closed thus precluding members from satisfying margin deficits until the morning of the next business day. Accordingly, GSD will adjust the noon intraday CFR in the form of an EUIC, to address this risk. In order to determine whether an EUIC should be applied, GSD will take the following steps:
1. At noon, GSD will compare the prior EOD VaR component of the CFR calculation with the current day's noon intraday VaR component of the CFR calculation.
2. If the current day's noon intraday VaR calculation is equal to or higher than the prior EOD's VaR calculation then GSD will not apply an EUIC. If however, the current day's noon calculation is lower, then GSD will proceed to the step 3. below.
3. GSD will review the GCF Repo® participant's DVP and GCF Repo® portfolio to determine whether the reduction in the noon calculation may be attributable to the GCF Repo® participant's intraday cash substitutions or early unwind of interbank allocations. If so, then GSD will apply the EUIC.
4. At the participant level, the EUIC
The EUIC for cash substitutions will apply to the repo side (cash borrower) and the reverse repo side (cash lender) of the transaction. As such, it should be noted that the reverse repo side is subject to the EUIC notwithstanding its inability to control the substitutions. The EUIC for cash substitutions applies to the reverse repo side because although they do not initiate the cash substitutions, the cash substitutions change the participant's risk profile and as a result, their noon intraday CFR could be unduly reduced. The EUIC for the early unwind of interbank allocations will only apply to the reverse repo side (cash lender) since it is only the reverse side whose lockup is unwound early. The securities subject to the early unwind are not returned to the repo side (cash borrower) in connection with the early unwind of interbank allocations. The early unwind of interbank allocations is performed on the reverse repo side to ensure that the underlying collateral is available to the repo side at its settlement bank. Cash is returned to the reverse repo side and thus unwound early. As such, it should be noted that the reverse repo side is subject to the EUIC notwithstanding its inability to control the early unwind of interbank allocations as their noon intraday CFR could be unduly reduced as a result of such early unwind. GSD
There is no automatic unwind (return of securities) to the repo side. If the repo side needs its securities before the 3:30 p.m. (ET) scheduled unwind, it may perform a securities-for-securities substitution or a cash-for-securities substitution (in which case it may be subject to the EUIC).
FICC believes it is important to incorporate the proposed changes in its risk management process as soon as possible because such changes will allow GSD to use more accurate position information in its margin calculations.
The proposed charge is consistent with the requirements of Section of 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), and the rules and regulations thereunder, because it applies prudent risk management to potential exposure that may result from intraday cash substitutions or early unwind of interbank allocations, and therefore facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assures the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible. As noted above, GSD discovered that cash substitutions and the early unwind of interbank allocations may unduly reduce the margin requirements of affected participants. The EUIC will ensure that GSD's noon intraday CFR is commensurate with a participant's risk profile by appropriately reflecting the exposure that may result from intraday cash substitutions and early unwind of interbank allocations.
As noted above, the EUIC for cash substitutions will apply to both the repo side (cash borrower) and the reverse repo side (cash lender) of the transaction and the EUIC for the early unwind of interbank allocations will apply to the reverse repo side only. As such, it should be noted that the reverse repo side is subject to the EUIC notwithstanding its inability to control the substitutions or the early unwind. The EUIC applies to the reverse repo side because although they do not initiate the cash substitutions or the early unwind of interbank allocations, these events change the reverse repo participants' risk profile and as a result, their noon intraday CFR could be unduly reduced. GSD has discussed the EUIC with the participants that are likely to be materially impacted by this proposed charge. These participants did not express concerns about the EUIC. The EUIC for the early unwind of interbank allocations will only apply to the reverse repo side (cash lender) since it is only the reverse side whose lockup is unwound early. The securities subject to the early unwind are not returned to the repo side (cash borrower) in connection with the early unwind of interbank allocations. The early unwind of interbank allocations is performed on the reverse repo side to ensure that the underlying collateral is available to the repo side at its settlement bank. Cash is returned to the reverse repo side and thus unwound early.
GSD believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the EUIC adjusts the noon intraday CFR when the CFR may have been unduly reduced due to cash substitutions or early unwind of interbank allocations. Thus, the proposal will allow GSD to adjust the noon intraday CFR with the EUIC in order to more accurately capture the risks presented to the clearing agency, and will help to ensure that GSD is not under margined during the time period covered by the noon intraday CFR. In this way, the proposal contributes to the goal of financial stability in the event of participant default, and will render not unreasonable or inappropriate any burden on competition that the changes could be regarded as imposing. Furthermore, GSD believes that the proposal will help facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and protect investors and the public interest, in furtherance of the requirements of the Act applicable to GSD. As such, to the extent there remains any perceived burden on competition caused by the proposal, GSD believes that any such burden would be both necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, as described above.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
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 Commissions Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–FICC–2014–01 and should be submitted on or before September 19, 2014.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
CHX proposes to adopt Article 3, Rule 20 that establishes a general prohibition against affiliation between the Exchange and any Participants. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Article 3, Rule 20 (No Affiliation between Exchange and any Participant). The purpose of the proposed rule is to guard against any possibility that the Exchange may exercise, or forbear to exercise, regulatory authority with respect to an affiliated Participant
Specifically, the proposed rule provides that the Exchange or any entity with which it is affiliated shall not, directly or indirectly, acquire or maintain an ownership interest in a Participant in the absence of an effective filing under Section 19(b) of the Act.
Moreover, the proposed rule provides that nothing in this proposed rule shall prohibit a Participant or its affiliate from acquiring or holding an equity interest in CHX Holdings, Inc. that is permitted by the ownership and voting limitation contained in the Certificate of Incorporation of CHX Holdings, Inc. Specifically, paragraph (b)(ii)(B) of the fifth section of the Certificate of Incorporation of CHX Holdings, Inc. provides that no Person, either alone or together with its Related Persons,
The proposed rule also limits possible expansive interpretations of the term “affiliate” by providing that nothing in the proposed rule shall prohibit a Participant from being or becoming an affiliate of the Exchange, or an affiliate of any affiliate of the Exchange, solely by reason of such Participant or any officer, director, manager, managing member, partner or affiliate of such Participant being or becoming either (a) a Director (as such term is defined in the Bylaws of the Exchange) pursuant to the Bylaws of the Exchange, or (b) a Director serving on the Board of Directors of CHX Holdings, Inc.
The Exchange believes that it is currently in compliance with the proposed rule. The Exchange and CHXBD, LLC are both wholly owned subsidiaries of CHX Holdings, Inc. (together “CHX affiliates”). None of the CHX affiliates have an ownership interest in a Participant and neither CHX Holdings, Inc. nor CHXBD, LLC are Participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt a general prohibition of affiliation between the Exchange and any Participant is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change implicates any competitive issues because the proposed rule only addresses the relationship between the Exchange and its Participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that it has previously expressed concern about the potential for unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests that could exist if an exchange were to otherwise become affiliated with one of its members, as well as the potential for unfair competitive advantage that the affiliated member could have by virtue of informational or operational advantages, or the ability to receive preferential treatment.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the 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.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Gold Horse International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2012.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 10, 2014.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Clavis Technologies International Co., Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 10, 2014.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Xinde Technology Company because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2012.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 10, 2014.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Wood, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended December 31, 2010.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 27, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 10, 2014.
By the Commission.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Notice of Meeting.
The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 24, and Thursday, September 25, 2014, to consider various matters.
The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural resource stewardship activities. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The meeting agenda includes the following:
1. Introductions.
2. Updates on Natural Resources issues.
3. Presentations covering TVA's Dam Safety Management and TVA's Reservoir Operations Study
4. Public Comments.
5. Council Discussion and Advice.
The RRSC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session starting at 10:30 a.m., EST, on Thursday, September 25. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 25 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT–9D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 24, from 8:00 a.m. to noon, and Thursday, September 25, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. EST.
The meeting will be held at Brasstown Valley Resort, 6321 U.S. Highway 76, Young Harris, Georgia 30582–2717 and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.
Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT–9 D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632–6113.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 30 and Wednesday, October 1, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the National Harbor 15 meeting room located on Level 3 of the Gaylord National Harbor Convention Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD 20745
Ms. Heather Hemdal, ATPAC Executive Director, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Tuesday, September 30 and Wednesday, October 1, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, revision, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures. It will also include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend and persons desiring to present oral statement should notify Ms. Heather Hemdal no later than September 23, 2014. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address given above.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 18, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2014–0598
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility 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.
Jake Troutman, (202) 267–9521, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 18, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2014–0591
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility 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.
Jake Troutman, (202) 267–9521, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Section of 14 CFR: Parts 21 subpart H, 27, 45.23(b), 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.9(b)(2), 91.7(a), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 18, 2014.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA–2014–0563
•
•
•
•
Jake Troutman, (202) 267–9521, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Savannah Airport Commission to waive the requirement that a 0.18-acre parcel of surplus property, owned and operated by the Savannah Airport Commission and located adjacent to Georgia Department of Transportation property, be used for aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2–260, Atlanta, GA 30337–2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Greg Kelly, Airport Director of Savannah–Hilton Head International Airport at the following address: 400 Airways Avenue, Savannah, GA 31408.
Aimee McCormick, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2–260, Atlanta, GA 30337–2747, (404) 305–7143. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by the Savannah Airport Commission to release 0.18 acres of surplus property at the Savannah–Hilton Head International Airport. The property will be purchased with intent for public roadway improvements and take over of long term maintenance. The location of the the land relative to existing or anticipated aircraft noise contours greater than 65ldn are not considered to be an issue. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be used for airport purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the Savannah–Hilton Head International Airport.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. Toward that end, FMCSA initiated The Impact of Driver Compensation on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Survey.
The primary purpose of the study will be to analyze the possible unintended safety consequences of the various methods by which Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers in the sample are compensated. Should the study show that there is a relationship between the methods drivers are paid and the methods' effect on safe driving performance, a potential benefit of the study will be to provide CMV carrier companies with information that will help them make more informed decisions about safe operations.
In addition to the primary purpose of the study, a number of other potentially potential confounding variables will be assessed. These variables include the following:
We must receive your comments on or before October 28, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket
•
•
•
•
Ms. Theresa Hallquist, Analysis, Research and Technology Division, Department of Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202–366–1064; email:
FMCSA, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In order to work continuously to ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) seeks to obtain OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect feedback on our service delivery. By feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study.
We must receive your comments on or before October 28, 2014.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA–2014–0237 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Brian Ronk, Program Manager, FMCSA, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery, Outreach Division/MC–ESO. Telephone (202) 366–1072; or email
Mr. Jeff Loftus, Supervisory Transportation Specialist, Technology Division/MC–RRT, Office of Analysis, Research and Technology, telephone (202) 385–2363; or email
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management and any release outside the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalized to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; granting of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant Daimler Trucks North America's (Daimler) application for an exemption for a Daimler driver to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in the United States without possessing a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. The driver is Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard, head of the Daimler Trucks and Bus Division, who will test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements for these vehicles in “real world” environments and verify results. He holds a valid German CDL but lacks the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a CDL issued by one of the States. FMCSA believes that the process for obtaining a German-issued CDL is comparable to or is effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures that this driver will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption.
This exemption is effective August 29, 2014 and expires August 29, 2016.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202–366–4325. Email:
The Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) has the authority to grant exemptions from any of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) issued under chapter 313 or § 31136 of title 49, United States Code, to a person(s) seeking regulatory relief (49 U.S.C. 31136(e), and 31315(b)) as added by Section 4007(a) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105–178, 112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998)). Prior to granting an exemption, the Secretary must request public comment and make a determination that the exemption is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption. Exemptions may be granted for a period of up to 2 years and may be renewed.
The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(e)(1) and (f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 313 and subchapters I and III of chapter 311, relating, respectively, to the commercial driver's license program and to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) programs and safety regulation.
In the July 22, 2014,
Daimler applied for an exemption for Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard from 49 CFR 383.23, requiring drivers operating CMVs to have a CDL issued by one of the States. Notice of the application was published on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37839). Five comments were received which were mixed in support or opposition to the application for exemption for Dr. Bernhard, however no substantive comments were received. A copy of the Daimler request is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. The exemption allows Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard to operate CMVs to support Daimler field tests to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote the development of technology and advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. He will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane state highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
Section 383.21 requires CMV drivers in the United States to have a CDL issued by a State. Dr. Bernhard is a citizen and resident of Germany. Only residents of a State can apply for a CDL. Without the exemption, Dr. Bernhard would not be able to test-drive Daimler prototype CMVs on U.S. roads.
Dr. Bernhard holds a valid German CDL and is an experienced operator of CMVs. In the application for exemption, Daimler also submitted documentation showing his safe German driving record.
According to Daimler, the requirements for a German-issued CDL ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if these drivers had a CDL issued by one of the States. Dr. Bernhard is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide and will be accompanied at all times by a driver who holds a U.S.-issued CDL and is
Based upon the merits of this application, including Dr. Bernhard's extensive driving experience and safety record, and the fact that he has successfully completed the requisite training and testing to obtain a German CDL, FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Dr. Wolfgang Bernhard an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Dr. Bernhard to drive CMVs in this country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350–399), (2) the driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German CDL, (3) the driver must be employed by and operating the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler, (4) Daimler must notify FMCSA within 5 business days in writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver, and (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) Dr. Bernhard fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 14 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
This decision is effective October 6, 2014. Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2006–23773; FMCSA–2008–0106; FMCSA–2010–0082; FMCSA–2010–0161; FMCSA–2012–0106; FMCSA–2012–0159; FMCSA–2012–0214], using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
This notice addresses 14 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 14 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 14 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (71 FR 6826; 71 FR 19602; 73 FR 35194; 73 FR 35200; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 48273; 73 FR 48275; 75 FR 25917; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR 39727; 75 FR 44050; 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 61833; 77 FR 33017; 77 FR 36336; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 44708; 77 FR 46793; 77 FR 46795; 77 FR 52388; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 56262; 77 FR 59245). Each of these 14 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2006–23773; FMCSA–2008–0106; FMCSA–2010–0082; FMCSA–2010–0161; FMCSA–2012–0106; FMCSA–2012–0159; FMCSA–2012–0214), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions, request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 35 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2014. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0010 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 35 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Bolyard, 55, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion Ronald has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bolyard reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 23 years, accumulating 2.76 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Braithwaite, 55, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “This letter certifies that Jackson Braithwaite, in my medical opinion, has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Braithwaite reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1.125 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 4 mph.
Mr. Bubel, 68, has had a retinal detachment causing macular degeneration in his left eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “As my last letter stated, in my professional opinion, Howard should be granted an exemption from the visual standard (the state has already done this). He should be allowed to haul his own livestock.” Mr. Bubel reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 45,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Burrus, 57, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Ray meets all the visual requirements to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Burrus reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Carrera, 40, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify that, in my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Carrera reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 176,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.44 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Clason, 47, has had amblyopia and a chorioretinal scar in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “However, right eye continues to do well and Lee's vision, including peripheral vision, is acceptable for his driver's license,
Mr. Claussen, 41, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “. . . I believe that Mr. Claussen has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Claussen reported that he has driven buses for 15 years, accumulating 168,750 miles. He holds an operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Coburn, 57, has a prosthetic left eye in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1979. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Coburn has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle with the proper use of prescription spectacles.” Mr. Coburn reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and buses for 8 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Vermont. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Cunningham, 57, has a corneal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “The patient has had his CDL for several years. He has been able to maintain his CDL and seems to have no apparent problems driving due to his vision. I think he should be able to maintain his current driving status.” Mr. Cunningham reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 630,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Demers, 37, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I have no reason to believe Mr. Demers' vision is anything other than sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Demers reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 720,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Duncan, 47, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Duncan has a normal eye examination. His amblyopia has been present since childhood, and will not affect his ability to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Duncan reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 91,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 9.5 years, accumulating 247,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Holshouser, 54, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/16, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certify that, in my medical opinion, the applicant's visual deficiency is stable and has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle, and that the applicant's condition will not adversely affect his/her ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.” Mr. Holshouser reported that he has driven straight trucks for 34 years, accumulating 884,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Juarez, 38, has macular scars of the retina in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, given that his visual acuity has been stable for many years, his vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks that are required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Juarez reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 19,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 9,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Knopf, 51, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Knopf reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years, accumulating 249,600 miles. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Kosior, 69, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is in my medical opinion, [sic] that Edward Kosior has sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Kosior reported that he has driven buses for 30 years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Krough, 49, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident in 1983. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “His right eye has no problems at all but it is within your discretion whether monocular vision is sufficient for operating a commercial vehicle. He has
Mr. Lathrop, 51, has had myopic astigmatism and amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Les has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial.” Mr. Lathrop reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years, accumulating 240,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lind, 24, has retinal sclopeteria in his left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “I last examined Mathew Lind on May 8, 2014. He has been a patient at our practice since 2003 when he presented after getting shot with a paintball gun in his left eye resulting in retinal sclopeteria . . . I feel that he is fully capable of safely operating a commercial vehicle and performing all driving tasks.” Mr. Lind reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 900 miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Luckerson, 57, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Luckerson has full use of his left eye and his vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Luckerson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lude, 57, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Based on his visual fields and his visual acuity in the right eye, Carl has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle if binocularity is not a critical factor.” Mr. Lude reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 1,050 miles. He holds a Class C CDL from Maine. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Miceli, 38, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Ross does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Miceli reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Miller, 36, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr. Miller has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2.5 years, accumulating 105,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 1.5 years, accumulating 142,500 miles, and buses for 9 years, accumulating 22,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Minney, 49, has had esotropia with secondary amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Even though he has reduced acuity in the right eye and bilateral color vision deficiency, it is my professional opinion that Mr. Minney is able to safely continue operating with a commercial vehicle license.” Mr. Minney reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Neff, 57, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1975. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Neff has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Neff reported that he has driven straight trucks for 39 years, accumulating 136,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 39 years, accumulating 136,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Nelson, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “He has a history of amblyopia in the left eye and left esotropia. In my opinion, he can safely perform the driving tasks needed to operate a commercial motor vehicle.” Mr. Nelson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 25,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Rosenkranse, 55, has had exotropia, a cataract, and a retinal scar in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify in my medical opinion, Mr Rosenkranse has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Rosenkranse reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years,
Mr. Sanchez, 57, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Sanchez's examination proves that he is visually efficient [sic] to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Sanchez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 40,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Siegler, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify that Lawrence Siegler in my opinion can safely perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle based on the above information as well as what was found during his eye exam.” Mr. Siegler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 2.16 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.
Mr. Smart, 56, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I don't think his vision deficiency in his right eye interferes with his ability to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Smart reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Smith, 62, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye since 1971. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “I certify that in my medical opinion, Mr. Smith has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 39 years, accumulating 585,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 1,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Strange, 45, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Mr. Strange appeared for a DOT visual evaluation on December 3, 2013. His ophthalmologist stated that Mr. Strange's visual impairment does not compromise his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Mr. Strange reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 192,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 336,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Von Hagen, 70, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, David Von Hagen has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Von Hagen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 2.66 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 34 years, accumulating 2.38 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Wallace, 57, has a corneal scar, aphakia, and secondary to exotropia in his right eye due to a trauma during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “At this time, I feel Mr. Wallace is visually capable of maintaining his current CDL license that he has held for the last 12 years.” Mr. Wallace reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 80,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Weiler, 56, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, “With Loran's overall visual acuity of 20/20, visual fields of greater than 120 degrees and color vision being normal, I do consider him to have sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Weiler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 180,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 36 years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, to which he did not contribute and was not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Zuech, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1979. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, “Pt's OS has full visual field to 120 degrees. PT also has full color vision in the OS based on Ishihara testing. Pt's OS is healthy with no pathology noted. Based on all measurements, I do feel he is safe to continue to perform the driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Zuech reported that he has driven straight trucks for 42 years, accumulating 1.05 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 200,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 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 (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 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 (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals and two entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the two individuals and two entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on August 20, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On August 20, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the two individuals and two entities listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act:
1. OEZER-SHAYESTEH, Guelin, 80331 Muenchen, Bayern, Germany; DOB 15 Feb 1962; citizen Germany (individual) [SDNTK].
2. OROZCO CARDENAS, Adrian, Privada Colonia del Valle 7001, Fraccionamiento Residencial Agua Caliente, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico; Calle Circunvalacion Sur 273–5, Colonia Las Fuentes 45070, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; c/o Farmacia Vida Suprema, S.A. DE C.V., Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico; c/o Distribuidora
Entities:
1. ESTRUCTURAS METALICAS, CIRCULARES Y ORTOGONALES (a.k.a. “EMCO”), Aldea El Durazno Lote 12 Kilometro 8.5, Antigua Ruta A San Pedro Ayampuc, Chinautla, Guatemala; Registration ID 45703 (Guatemala) [SDNTK].
2. OPERADORA CORPORATIVA DE NEGOCIOS (a.k.a. “OCN”), Diagnol 6 No. 16–01, Zona 10, Guatemala City, Guatemala [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 3 individuals and 5 entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (“Kingpin Act”) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the three individuals and five entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on August 20, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On August 20, 2014, the Director of OFAC designated the following 3 individuals and 5 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. VALLE VALLE, Miguel Arnulfo; DOB 02 Jul 1972; POB Florida, Copan, Honduras; nationality Honduras (individual) [SDNT].
2. VALLE VALLE, Luis Alonso; DOB 29 Jun 1969; POB La Encarnacion, Octepeque, Honduras; nationality Honduras (individual) [SDNT].
3. VALLE VALLE, Jose Reynerio; DOB 15 Jan 1974; nationality Honduras (individual) [SDNT].
4. FINCA LOS TRES REYES, Aldea Espiritu Santo, Municipio de Florida, Departamento de Copan, Honduras [SDNT].
5. INVERSIONES LUISITO, Aldea Espíritu Santo, Municipio de Florida, Departamento de Copan, Honduras [SDNT].
6. INVERSIONES VALLE, Aldea Espíritu Santo, Municipio de Florida, Departamento de Copan, Honduras [SDNT].
7. INVERSIONES YOSARY, Honduras; Aldea Espíritu Santo, Municipio de Florida, Departamento de Copan, Honduras [SDNT].
8. LOS VALLES DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION (a.k.a. VALLE VALLE DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION) [SDNT].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 16 individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers”.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”) of the 16 individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on August 20, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On August 20, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the 16 individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property has been unblocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the individual identified in this notice is effective August 20, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Tel: (202)622–2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On August 20, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the individual listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations:
1. BOILEAU, Pierre, 1078 Rue Champigny, Duvernay, Quebec, Canada (individual) [CUBA].
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 October 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
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.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice.
VA OSDBU, 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 October 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Milagros Ortiz at (202) 461–4279 or Fax (202) 461–4301.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 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, OMB invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OMB's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OMB'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.
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 October 28, 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 (Pub. L. 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.
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 October 28, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 632–8924 or Fax (202) 632–8925.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 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.
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 October 28, 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 (Pub. L. 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.
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 September 29, 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for Oregon spotted frog (
This rule is effective September 29, 2014.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; telephone 360–753–9440; facsimile 360–753–9445. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
This rule will finalize the listing of the Oregon spotted frog
• Habitat necessary to support all life stages continues to be impacted or destroyed by human activities that result in the loss of wetlands to land conversions; hydrologic changes resulting from operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of beavers; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure resulting from reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, increased water temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting from the timing and intensity of livestock grazing (or in some instances, removal of livestock grazing at locations where it maintains early seral stage habitat essential for breeding).
• Predation by nonnative species, including nonnative trout and bullfrogs.
• Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that result in significant negative impacts, such as habitat loss and modification.
• Other natural or manmade factors including small and isolated breeding locations, low connectivity, low genetic diversity within occupied sub-basins, and genetic differentiation between sub-basins.
On August 29, 2013, we published a proposed rule (78 FR 53582) to list the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
This rule concerns only the listing of the Oregon spotted frog; we will make a final determination concerning critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog in the near future.
The Oregon spotted frog is named for the characteristic black spots covering the head, back, sides, and legs. The dark spots have ragged edges and light centers, usually associated with a tubercle or raised area of skin. The coloration patterns on Oregon spotted frogs all develop with age; the spots become larger and darker and the edges become more ragged as the individual gets older (Hayes 1994, p. 14). Overall body color also varies with age. Juveniles are usually brown or, occasionally, olive green on the back and white, cream, or flesh-colored with reddish pigments on the underlegs and abdomen developing with age (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 1–2). Adults range from brown to reddish brown but tend to become redder with age. Large, presumably older, individuals may be brick red over most of the dorsal (back) surfaces (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 1–2). Red surface pigments on the adult abdomen also expand with age, and the underlegs of adults become a vivid orange red. Tan to orange folds along the sides of the back (dorsolateral folds) extend from behind the eye to midway along the back (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 1). The eyes are upturned; there is a faint mask, and a light jaw stripe extends to the shoulder. Small bumps and tubercles usually cover the back and sides (Leonard
The Oregon spotted frog is a medium-sized frog that ranges from about 1.7 to 4.1 inches (in) (44 to 105 millimeters (mm)) in body length (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 1; Rombough
Morphological characters can be used to distinguish Oregon spotted frogs from other closely related spotted frogs. Mottling with dark pigments and fragmentation of the superficial red or orange-red wash on the abdomen can distinguish the Oregon spotted frog from some Columbia spotted frog populations (Hayes 1997, p. 3; Hayes
The Oregon spotted frog has a weak call consisting of a rapid series of six to nine low clucking notes described as sounding like a distant woodpecker's tapping. Males will call at any time, both day and night (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 12). Males have been documented to call from submerged sites that are physically distant (tens to hundreds of meters) from oviposition (egg-laying) sites (Bowerman 2010, p. 85). These submerged calls are inaudible at the surface and begin several days prior to breeding. Submerged calling is more frequent at night, although daytime calling has been recorded during overcast days (Bowerman 2010, pp. 85–86). It is unclear if mate selection takes place during this period of calling remotely from the breeding site, but it seems likely (Bowerman 2010, p. 86). This species rarely vocalizes except during the breeding season (Leonard
The scientific name
In 2008, phylogenetic analyses were conducted on samples of Oregon spotted frogs collected from 3 locations in Washington and 13 locations in Oregon (Funk
Blouin
Levels of genetic variation in the Oregon spotted frog groups are low compared to other ranid frogs, suggesting these populations are very small and/or very isolated (Blouin
Male Oregon spotted frogs are not territorial and often gather in large groups of 25 or more individuals at specific locations (Leonard
Oregon spotted frogs' eggs are extremely vulnerable to desiccation and
Licht (1974, pp. 617–625) documented the highly variable mortality rates for spotted frog life-history stages in marsh areas in the lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, embryos (30 percent), tadpoles (99 percent), and post-metamorphic (after the change from tadpole to adult, or “metamorphosis”) frogs (95 percent). Licht (1974, p. 625) estimated mortality of each life stage and predicted only a 1 percent chance of survival of eggs to metamorphosis, a 67 percent chance of juvenile survival for the first year, and a 64 percent adult annual survival with males having a higher mortality rate than females. An average adult between-year survival of 37 percent was estimated by a mark-recapture study at Dempsey Creek in Washington between 1997 and 1999 (Watson
Adult Oregon spotted frogs begin to breed by 1 to 3 years of age, depending on sex, elevation, and latitude. Males may breed at 1 year at lower elevations and latitudes but generally breed at 2 years of age. Females breed by 2 or 3 years of age, depending on elevation and latitude. Longevity of the species is not well understood; however, there are multiple examples of Oregon spotted frogs living beyond 7 years of age (Watson
Egg-laying can begin as early as February in lowland areas of British Columbia and Washington and as late as early June in the higher elevations. Tadpoles metamorphose into froglets (tiny frogs) (about 0.6–1.75 in. (16–43 mm.) in length) during their first summer (Leonard
Post-metamorphic Oregon spotted frogs are opportunistic predators that prey on live animals, primarily insects, found in or near the water. Prey groups of adult frogs include leaf beetles (
Similar to many North American pond-breeding anurans (belonging to the Order Anura, which contains all frogs), predators can strongly affect the abundance of larval and post-metamorphic Oregon spotted frogs. The heaviest losses to predation are thought to occur shortly after tadpoles emerge from eggs, when they are relatively exposed and poor swimmers (Licht 1974, p. 624). However, the odds of survival appear to increase as tadpoles grow in size and aquatic vegetation matures, thus affording cover (Licht 1974, p. 624). Adult Oregon spotted frogs have a number of documented and potential natural predators, including garter snakes (
Subadult Oregon spotted frogs have been observed within dense aggregations of recently hatched Oregon spotted frog tadpoles, and stomach flushing verified that these subadult Oregon spotted frogs had consumed (cannibalized) recently hatched conspecific (belonging to the same species) tadpoles (McAllister 2008, pers. comm.). Invertebrate predators include dytiscid beetles (
The introduction of nonnative species into the historical range of the Oregon spotted frog is believed to have contributed to the decline of this and other species of frogs (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 491–492, 494–496; Hayes 1994, p. 5; 61 FR 25813; McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 25–26; Pearl
Watson
The Oregon spotted frog inhabits emergent wetland habitats in forested landscapes, although it is not typically found under forest canopy. Historically, this species was also associated with lakes in the prairie landscape of the Puget lowlands (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 16). This is the most aquatic native frog species in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), as all other species have a terrestrial life stage. It is found in or near a perennial body of water, such as a spring, pond, lake, sluggish stream, irrigation canal, or roadside ditch (Engler 1999, pers. comm.). The observation that extant Oregon spotted frog populations tend to occur in larger wetlands led Hayes (1994, Part II pp. 5, 7) to hypothesize that a minimum size of 9 acres (ac) (4 hectares (ha)) may be necessary to reach suitably warm temperatures and support a large enough population to persist despite high predation rates. However, Oregon spotted frogs also occupy smaller sites and are known to occur at sites as small as 2.5 ac (1 ha) and as large as 4,915 ac (1,989 ha) (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 11). Oregon spotted frogs have been found at elevations ranging from near sea level in the Puget Trough lowlands in Washington to approximately 5,000 feet (ft) (1,500 meters (m)) in the Oregon Cascades in western Oregon (Dunlap 1955, p. 316; Hayes 1997, p. 16; McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 8–10).
Oregon spotted frogs can make use of a variety of pond types as long as there is sufficient vegetation and seasonal habitat available for egg-laying, tadpole rearing, summer feeding, and overwintering (Pearl et. al. 2009a, p. 144). Oregon spotted frogs at Dempsey Creek in Washington selected areas of relatively shallow water with less emergent vegetation but more submergent vegetation than adjacent habitats. They avoided dry, upland areas of pasture grass (Watson
Oregon spotted frogs breed in shallow pools (≤14 in (35 cm) deep) that are near flowing water, or which are connected to larger bodies of water during seasonally high water or at flood stage. Characteristic vegetation includes grasses, sedges, and rushes, although eggs are laid where the vegetation is low or sparse, such that vegetation structure does not shade the eggs (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 17). While native vegetation is the preferred substrate, the frog also uses short, manipulated, reed canarygrass/native vegetation mix (Engler 1999, pers. comm.). Full solar exposure seems to be a significant factor in egg-laying habitat selection (McAllister and White 2001, p. 12; Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 18). The availability of the unique characteristics of traditional egg-laying sites is limited, and adults may have limited flexibility to switch sites (Hayes 1994, p. 19). This may make the Oregon spotted frog particularly vulnerable to modification of egg-laying sites (Hayes 1994, p. 19).
After breeding, during the dry season, Oregon spotted frogs move to deeper, permanent pools or creeks (Watson
Known overwintering sites are associated with flowing systems, such as springs and creeks, that provide well-oxygenated water (Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 15; Hayes
Results of a habitat utilization and movement study at Dempsey Creek in Washington indicate that adult frogs made infrequent movements between widely separated pools and more frequent movements between pools in closer proximity (Watson
Recaptures of Oregon spotted frogs at breeding locations in the Buck Lake population in Oregon indicated that adults often move less than 300 ft (100 m) between years (Hayes 1998a, p. 9). However, longer travel distances, while infrequent, have been observed between years and within a single year between seasons. Three adult Oregon spotted frogs (one male and two females) marked in a study at Dempsey Creek and the Black River in Washington moved a distance of 1.5 mi (2.4 km) between seasons along lower Dempsey Creek to the creek's mouth from the point where they were marked (McAllister and Walker 2003, p. 6). An adult female Oregon spotted frog traveled 1,434 ft (437 m) between seasons from its original capture location at the Trout Lake Wetland NAP (Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 8). Two juvenile frogs at the Jack Creek site in Oregon were recaptured the next summer 4,084 ft (1,245 m) and 4,511 ft (1,375 m) downstream from where they were initially marked, and one adult female moved 9,183 ft (2,799 m) downstream (Cushman and Pearl 2007, p. 13). Oregon spotted frogs at the Sunriver site routinely make annual migrations of 1,640 to 4,265 ft (500 to
While these movement studies are specific to Oregon spotted frogs, the number of studies and size of the study areas are limited and have not been conducted over multiple seasons or years. In addition, the ability to detect frogs is challenging because of the difficult terrain and the need for the receiver and transmitter to be in close proximity. Hammerson (2005) recommends that a 3.1-mile (5-km) dispersal distance be applied to all ranid frog species, because the movement data for ranids are consistent. The preponderance of data indicates that a separation distance of several kilometers may be appropriate and practical for delineation of occupancy, despite occasional movements that are longer or that may allow some genetic interchange between distant populations (for example, the 6.2-mi (10-km) distance noted by Blouin
Historically, the Oregon spotted frog ranged from British Columbia to the Pit River basin in northeastern California (Hayes 1997, p. 40; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 7). Oregon spotted frogs have been documented at 61 historical localities in 48 watersheds (3 in British Columbia, 13 in Washington, 29 in Oregon, and 3 in California) in 31 sub-basins (McAllister
Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is found from extreme southwestern British Columbia south through the Puget Trough and in the Cascades Range from south-central Washington at least to the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon. Oregon spotted frogs occur in lower elevations in British Columbia and Washington and are restricted to high elevations in Oregon (Pearl
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs no longer occupy the locations documented historically, but they currently are known to occupy four disjunct locations in a single sub-basin, the Lower Fraser River (Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team 2012, p. 6).
In Washington, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within six sub-basins/watersheds: The Sumas River, a tributary to the Lower Chilliwack River watershed and Fraser River sub-basin; the Black Slough in the lower South Fork Nooksack River, a tributary of the Nooksack River; Samish River; Black River, a tributary of the Chehalis River; Outlet Creek (Conboy Lake), a tributary to the Middle Klickitat River; and Trout Lake Creek, a tributary of the White Salmon River. The Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers are tributaries to the Columbia River. The Oregon spotted frogs in each of these sub-basins/watersheds are isolated from frogs in other sub-basins.
A reintroduction project was initiated in 2008, at Dailman Lake in Pierce County on Joint Base Lewis-McChord Military Reservation. This sub-basin (Nisqually River) was historically occupied by Oregon spotted frogs with a documented occurrence at Kapowsin (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 18–19). Eggs were collected from the Black River and the Conboy Lake Oregon spotted frog egg-laying locations, captive reared until metamorphosis, and released in the fall or subsequent spring. Through 2011, researchers collected 7,870 eggs and released 3,355 frogs (Tirhi and Schmidt 2011, pp. 51–53). Surveys in April 2011 found 3 verified Oregon spotted frog egg masses and 11 suspected egg masses. However, egg masses were not detected in 2012. This effort is ongoing, and the efficacy and viability of a breeding Oregon spotted frog population being established in this area is undetermined; therefore, this location will not be discussed further. However, should a population be established, it would be considered to be a part of the listed entity.
In Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within eight sub-basins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette, Upper Klamath, Upper Klamath Lake, and the Williamson River. The Oregon spotted frogs in most of these sub-basins are isolated from frogs in other sub-basins, although Oregon spotted frogs in the lower Little Deschutes River are aquatically connected with those below Wickiup Reservoir in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin. Oregon spotted frog distribution west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon is restricted to a few lakes in the upper watersheds of the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River sub-basins, which represent the remaining 2 out of 12 historically occupied sub-basins.
In California, this species has not been detected since 1918 (California Academy of Science Museum Record 44291) at historical sites and may be extirpated (Hayes 1997, pp. 1, 35). However, there has been limited survey effort of potential habitat and this species may still occur in California.
Of the 61 historical localities where the species' previous existence can be verified (e.
Egg mass counts are believed to be a good metric of adult population size and are the most time-efficient way to estimate population size (Phillipsen
Egg mass counts, as currently conducted at most sites, do not allow for evaluation of trends within a site nor between sites because surveys are not standardized. Survey effort, area coverage, and timing can differ between years at individual sites. In addition, method of survey can differ between years at individual sites and differ between sites. Because of the weaknesses associated with the egg mass counts, site estimates derived from egg mass counts are considered to be a minimum estimate and generally should not be compared across years or with other sites. However, some breeding locations have been surveyed in a consistent manner (in some cases by the same researcher) and for enough years that trend data are available and considered to be reliable. Trend information is provided in the following sub-basin summaries for the locations where the information is available.
For the purposes of this document, the terms `location' and `site' simply refer to the general locations where egg-laying has been observed. In some cases, a site may be equivalent to an Oregon spotted frog population (for example, Hosmer Lake). In other cases, a site may include multiple egg-laying locations within wetland complexes where hydrological connections may facilitate movement between egg-laying areas, but where movement patterns and genetic conditions are undetermined within the complexes (for example, Klamath Marsh NWR). Accordingly, a site should not be interpreted to be a population. Because of the lack of complete information between occurrence locations, populations were not specifically identified for this status review, and the focus of our analysis regarding the status of Oregon spotted frogs was within the individual river sub-basins.
The following summarizes the best available scientific and commercial information available regarding populations within the currently occupied river sub-basins in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. We used multiple data sources, including various unpublished reports, databases, and spreadsheets provided by our partner agencies. These sources are identified in the following sections as “multiple data sources” and are included in our literature cited list, which is included as supplementary information on
Currently, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within four sites in the Lower Fraser River Basin. Of the four sites, Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove (MD Aldergrove) is nearing, or may have reached extirpation, as no egg masses have been discovered at the site since 2006; Mountain Slough appears to be stable; Maria Slough may be declining; and there are limited data for the recently discovered Morris Valley site (COSEWIC 2011, p. v). Estimates from the well-studied populations at MD Aldergrove, Maria Slough, and Mountain Slough indicate a population decline of 35 percent during the period 2000–2010 (COSEWIC 2011, p. 32), and the most recent egg mass counts indicate the minimum population size for all of British Columbia is fewer than 350 adults (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 27–30). One extant population is near extinction, and the remaining populations are small and vulnerable to disturbance and stochastic events. Extirpation of the MD Aldergrove population would result in a reduction of 76 percent of the extent of Oregon spotted frog in the Lower Fraser River (COSEWIC 2011, pp. vii–ix). Therefore, populations of Oregon spotted frogs in the Lower Fraser River are declining.
In Washington, the Oregon spotted frog was historically found in the Puget Trough from the Canadian border to the Columbia River, and east to the Washington Cascades (McAllister
Trend data are limited; however, the Oregon spotted frog population in the Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake) appears to be declining (see below for further information). The population trend within the rest of the occupied sub-basins is unknown. More detailed discussions of Washington's occupied sub-basins/watersheds are provided below.
The full extent of the population's distribution, abundance, and status in the Black River has not been determined. The Black River adult breeding population was comprised of at least 1,748 breeding adults in 2012 (Hallock 2013, p. 27) and 3,330 breeding adults in 2013 (WDFW multiple data sources). Oregon spotted frogs in Dempsey Creek have been monitored relatively consistently since the late 1990s. Other breeding areas in the Black River have been monitored inconsistently or were recently found, and surveys to identify additional breeding locations continue. The Dempsey Creek breeding area may be declining, but the trend for the remainder of the occupied areas is undetermined.
Population estimates of Oregon spotted frogs in Oregon are primarily based on egg mass surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 at known extant sites, and newly discovered occupied areas that had been unsurveyed prior to 2012. Population estimates for the Middle Fork Willamette River sub-basin are based on mark-recapture studies conducted by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2011, rather than egg mass surveys. Based on these survey data, the minimum population estimate in Oregon consists of approximately 12,847 breeding adults. More detailed discussions of Oregon's occupied sub-basins are provided below and are available in our files.
The consistency of population surveys varies by breeding site, and population trend information is limited. Only two sites within the sub-basin have been monitored consistently since the early 2000s and show an increasing population trend: Dilman Meadow and Sunriver (USGS and J. Bowerman 2000 through 2012 datasets). Trend data are not available for the remainder of populations within the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin. Sunriver, located downstream of Wickiup Reservoir, is the largest population of Oregon spotted frogs within the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin with a population of at least 1,454 breeding adults based on 2012 egg mass surveys (J. Bowerman dataset 2012). A minimum population estimate for the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin (including Sunriver) is approximately 3,530 breeding adults based on surveys since 2006 (USGS 2006 to 2012 and J. Bowerman 2012 datasets).
Because 70 percent of the sub-basin is privately owned and mostly unsurveyed, a population estimate for the entire Little Deschutes River sub-basin is difficult to determine. A minimum population estimate of Oregon spotted frogs based on limited survey data from public and private lands in 2012 is approximately 6,628 breeding adults (including Big Marsh above). However, the vast acreage of wetland complexes and suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frogs along the mainstem Little Deschutes River and Crescent Creek indicate that the frog population within the unsurveyed areas may be well above this estimate. Although the trend of the frog population at Big Marsh appears to be increasing based on USFS surveys from 2002 to 2012 (USFS 2002–2012), the population trend of the remainder of frogs within the sub-basin is undetermined.
Oregon spotted frogs may no longer occur in as much as 90 percent of their historically documented range, including all of the historical localities in California (i.e., 90 percent of the historical areas are no longer occupied). Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is found in 15 sub-basins ranging from extreme southwestern British Columbia south through the Puget Trough, and in the Cascades Range from south-central Washington at least to the Klamath Basin in Oregon. Oregon spotted frogs occur in lower elevations in British Columbia and Washington and are restricted to higher elevations (i.e., 3,160 to 5,200 ft (963 to 1,585 m) in Oregon. In addition, Oregon spotted frogs currently have a very limited distribution west of the Cascade crest in Oregon and are considered to be extirpated from the Willamette Valley.
In most sub-basins, trend information regarding the collective status of the populations within the sub-basin is limited or not available. The best scientific and commercial information available indicates the trend is undetermined for Oregon spotted frog populations in 13 of the sub-basins and is declining in the Lower Fraser River and Middle Klickitat sub-basins. Threats to the remaining populations are ongoing or increasing, however, as described below.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these threats/factors is discussed below.
Threats for the Oregon spotted frog were assessed by breeding locations and occupied watersheds, then summarized by occupied sub-basin in this final rule. Each of the five threat categories were summarized by sub-basin using the unified threats classification system (loosely based on the IUCN–CMP (World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership)), best available data, and best professional judgment. We summarized threats in each occupied sub-basin for scope, severity, impact, timing, and stress, to ensure our determination would be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A). Scope is the proportion of the occupied area within the sub-basin that can reasonably be expected to be affected. Severity is the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected. Impact summarizes the degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly affected and is based on the combination of the severity and scope rating (for example, if the severity and scope ratings were both high, then the impact rating was high). Timing is the immediacy of the threat (i.e., is the threat ongoing, could happen in the short term, or is only in the past). Stress is the key ecological, demographic, or individual attribute that may be impaired or reduced by a threat. The completed analysis (Threats Synthesis Rangewide Analysis) is available at
Large historical losses of wetland habitat have occurred across the range of the Oregon spotted frog. Wetland losses are estimated from between 30 to 85 percent across the species' range with the greatest percentage lost having occurred in British Columbia. These wetland losses have directly influenced the current fragmentation and isolation of remaining Oregon spotted frog populations.
Loss of natural wetland and riverine disturbance processes as a result of human activities has and continues to result in degradation of Oregon spotted frog habitat. Historically, a number of disturbance processes created emergent wetlands favorable to Oregon spotted frogs throughout the PNW: (1) Rivers freely meandered over their floodplains, removing trees and shrubs and baring patches of mineral soil; (2) beavers created a complex mosaic of aquatic habitat types for year-round use; and (3) summer fires burned areas that would be shallow water wetlands during the Oregon spotted frog breeding season the following spring. Today, all of these natural processes are greatly reduced, are impaired, or have been permanently altered as a result of human activities, including stream bank, channel, and wetland modifications; operation of water control structures (e.g., dams and diversions); beaver removal; and fire suppression.
The historical loss of Oregon spotted frog habitats and lasting anthropogenic changes in natural disturbance processes are exacerbated by the introduction of reed canarygrass, nonnative predators, and potentially climate change. In addition, current regulatory mechanisms and voluntary incentive programs designed to benefit fish species have inadvertently led to the continuing decline in quality of Oregon spotted frog habitats in some locations. The current wetland and stream vegetation management paradigm is generally a no-management or restoration approach that often results in succession to a tree- and
Threats to the species' habitat include changes in hydrology due to construction of dams and human-related alterations to seasonal flooding, introduction of nonnative plant and animal species, vegetation succession and encroachment, poor water quality, livestock grazing (in some circumstances), and residential and commercial development.
Habitat losses and alterations affect amphibian species in a variety of ways, including reducing or eliminating immigration through losses of adjacent populations (see “Factor E”) and effects on critical aspects of the habitat (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 492–494). These critical aspects include suitable egg-laying and nursery sites, refuges from predation or unfavorable environmental conditions, and suitable temperatures necessary for egg laying, growth, and development (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 492–494).
Because Oregon spotted frogs have specific habitat requirements, they are particularly vulnerable to habitat alterations: (1) A restricted number of communal egg-laying locations are used year after year; (2) the species' warm water microhabitat requirement results in habitat overlap with introduced warm water fish species and other warm water fauna that prey on Oregon spotted frogs (for example, bullfrogs); (3) the availability of suitable warm water habitat, a requirement in the active season, is generally limited in the cool climate of the PNW; (4) the species is vulnerable to the loss or alteration of springs used for overwintering; and (5) their habitat requirements (for example, spatial structure) for overwintering, active season, and breeding habitats are more complex than for other frog species (Hayes
Major alterations to Conboy Lake wetland complex in Washington began when settlers started moving to Glenwood Valley in the late 1800s. Wet meadows were drained through a series of canals, ditches, and dikes largely developed between 1911 and 1914, and remain today. The five creeks that flow into this wetland complex and the Cold Springs ditch are entirely channelized within the wetland complex. Ditching, filling, and other habitat alterations have resulted in little or no retention of surface water in the late-season lakebeds (Conboy Lake and Camas Prairie), reducing the amount of aquatic habitat available for the Oregon spotted frog. The historical Conboy lakebed is believed to have retained water for 10 to 12 months in most years. Currently, it retains water only during wet years and is purposefully drained annually to control bullfrogs (Ludwig 2012, pers. comm.). The Camas Prairie portion of Glenwood Valley retains water year-round over a small area and only in wet years. Typically, aquatic habitat is reduced to about 1,000 ac (400 ha) during the late summer and early fall (Hayes
Human alteration of wetlands in the central Oregon Cascades has had less severe effects since many of the sites inhabited by the Oregon spotted frog are located at high elevation and within lakes and wetlands located on Federal lands managed by the USFS. However, damming and diverting water for irrigation needs has resulted in the loss of wetlands within the Upper Deschutes sub-basin beginning in the early 1900s (see hydrology section below). Wetland loss is also an ongoing threat to Oregon spotted frogs within the Little Deschutes River sub-basin in south Deschutes County, where land development has increased since the 1960s.
A substantial amount of wetland habitat in the Klamath Basin has been drained and converted to other uses, primarily for grazing and row-crop production, although the extent of this loss is difficult to estimate due to a lack of accurate historical data (Larson and Brush 2010). The majority of wetland
Changing water levels at critical periods in the Oregon spotted frog's life cycle, whether natural or human-induced, has negatively affected the species. Lowered water levels have exposed individuals to predation by reducing cover and confining them to smaller areas where they are more vulnerable to predators (see also Factor C). Water level reduction during the breeding season, due to both natural and anthropogenic causes, has resulted in the loss of the entire reproductive effort for the year due to stranding and desiccation of the egg masses in British Columbia (Licht 1971, p. 122; COSFRT 2012, p. 18), Washington (Lewis
Most of the currently occupied Oregon spotted frog sites face threats from changes in hydrology. Twenty-one of twenty-eight (75 percent) sites surveyed in Washington and Oregon have had some human-related hydrological alterations, ranging from minor changes (for example, local ditching around springs) to substantial changes, including major modifications of historical flow patterns (Hayes 1997, p. 43; Hayes
Water management in the Glenwood Valley, Washington (Middle Klickitat River sub-basin), appears to be playing a significant role in the decline of the Oregon spotted frog in this sub-basin. Water management in this area is complex due to the juxtaposition of private, county, and federal lands, and the location and ownership of water diversion structures. The need to retain water on the Conboy Lake NWR for resources, including the Oregon spotted frog, conflicts with needs of the intermingled and adjacent private landowners who want water drawn down in order to grow reed canarygrass for haying or to graze cattle. In addition, water management on the NWR is constrained by failing dikes, plugged ditches, undersized culverts, and lack of water control structures (USFWS 2012, p. 27). Dewatering by Conboy Lake NWR generally begins June 1, but begins as early as April on privately held lands, which also results in the dewatering of some refuge lands (USFWS 2012, p. 28). The Camas Prairie area of the valley is drained annually to facilitate production of hay and grazing opportunities (USFWS 2012, p. 28).
Dewatering breeding areas during the egg stage results in desiccation of Oregon spotted frog egg masses. Dewatering during the rearing stage results in tadpole mortality if water is not retained through metamorphosis. Physical barriers created by the dike system hinder young frogs (recently metamorphosed) from moving into permanent waters, especially when water is drawn down too quickly or a surface water connection to permanent water is not retained. Disconnection from permanent water occurs in some places in the valley, which results in young frogs becoming stranded and dying. In the areas where a connection to permanent water is retained and frogs are able to move with the water, the frogs become concentrated in smaller areas with predators such as fish and bullfrogs or become easy targets for terrestrial predators (Engler 2006, pers. comm.). This issue is complex, because the nonnative bullfrog is fairly common on the refuge, and studies indicate they can prey heavily on native frog species, including Oregon spotted frog.
Water management can be used as a method to reduce bullfrog tadpole survival by drying up seasonal wetlands completely by early fall. However, widespread drawdowns for bullfrog tadpole control can conflict with the need to provide rearing, movement, and summertime water for Oregon spotted frogs (USFWS 2010b, pp. 36, 63, 67). Surveys since 1998 have documented extensive annual declines in Oregon spotted frog egg mass numbers due to early water drawdowns and perennially low water; therefore, inadequate water or poorly timed water management activities continue to be a threat to Oregon spotted frog that has a significant negative impact on recruitment (the addition of young individuals to the adult population) and survival in the Middle Klickitat River sub-basin.
In the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon, regulated water releases from Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs result in extreme seasonal fluctuations in stream flows that have affected the amount of overwintering and breeding habitat available for Oregon spotted frogs. Prior to the construction of Wickiup Dam in 1947, the Deschutes River below the current dam site exhibited stable flows averaging approximately 730 cubic feet per second (cfs) (20.7 cubic meters per second (cms)) and 660 cfs (18.7 cms) during summer and winter, respectively (Hardin-Davis 1991). Water storage in the reservoirs during winter, water releases in the spring, and water diversions for irrigation result in extremely low winter flows (October through March) in the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam of approximately 20–30 cfs (0.6–0.8 cms) and high summer flows (July and August) of approximately 1,400 cfs (39.6 cms). Because water releases from Wickiup Reservoir typically occur in early to mid-April, potential breeding habitats downstream of Wickiup Dam on the mainstem Deschutes River may not have sufficient water during the breeding season to facilitate frog movement and breeding unless supported by springs.
Currently, Oregon spotted frog breeding is known to occur in five areas downstream of Wickiup Reservoir along the Deschutes River: Dead Slough, La Pine State Park, Sunriver, Slough Camp, and Old Mill casting pond (including adjacent LSA marsh). Oregon spotted frog habitat at Sunriver Resort has been managed and maintained by Sunriver Nature Center by using weirs to stabilize the water levels from the beginning of the breeding season through metamorphosis, which has resulted in a large and fairly stable population of Oregon spotted frogs, despite the low river flows during the breeding season. Breeding and dispersal of metamorphosing frogs at the Slough Camp site is likely affected by the seasonal timing of storage and release of water from the reservoir each year. Adults have been observed at the inlet to Slough Camp (east side) prior to the flow releases from the reservoir in early April (Higgins 2012, pers. comm.), indicating that frogs may be staging to access breeding habitat that becomes accessible when flows are released for the irrigation season. At the onset of the storage season in October, the east side of Slough Camp drains rapidly of water, which could result in stranding of frogs that have bred and reared in this location. In 2012, Oregon spotted frogs were discovered in a water retention pond at The Old Mill District shops and in a riverine marsh (LSA marsh) across from the pond in downtown Bend, Oregon. The shallow pond, located within 20 ft (6 m) of the Deschutes River, is managed to provide year-round water that supports overwintering frogs. However, the impacts of regulated river flows to Oregon spotted frogs within the LSA marsh remain to be evaluated.
Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon are affected by regulated water management downstream of Crescent Lake Dam in Crescent Creek and the Little Deschutes River below the confluence with Crescent Creek. Regulated water releases from Crescent Lake typically occur in June, just after the breeding season. Egg mass stranding has been observed on three separate occasions along the Little Deschutes River, downstream of the confluence with Crescent Creek, prior to the release of irrigation water (Demmer 2012, pers. comm.). Overwintering habitats may be limited when flows from Crescent Lake typically cease in October at the onset of the storage season. Groundwater may be ameliorating the impacts from the regulated water management in Crescent Creek in locations where groundwater discharges to the stream (Gannett
In the Klamath Basin, the Upper Klamath sub-basin populations may be affected by water diversion at Hyatt and Keene Creek dams. Hyatt and Keene Creek dams may divert up to 136 cfs of flow from Keene Creek, in the Klamath Basin, for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and hydroelectric power generation in the Rogue basin (OWRD 2002, 2008). While there is no known surface or subsurface connection between the operation of these facilities and Oregon spotted frog populations in the Parsnip Lakes, these dams may affect flows in Keene Creek, where isolated juvenile Oregon spotted frogs have been observed (Parker 2009, p. 5). The precise effect of water diversion at these facilities on habitat conditions is unknown and has been complicated by grazing practices and the loss of beaver dams in the area (Parker 2009, p. 5). While these facilities reduce Keene Creek flows during the winter and spring, groundwater contributions from Keene Creek reservoir may contribute to wetland conditions during dry summer conditions.
Low water levels resulting from drought may reduce populations of nonnative predators (fish and bullfrogs); however, both Hayes (1997, p. 43) and Pearl (1999, pp. 17–18) hypothesized that low water conditions will increase the overlap between Oregon spotted frogs and nonnative predators, such as brook trout and bullfrogs, by concentrating tadpoles and froglets in the only available habitat. Such increased overlap is expected to increase predation losses of Oregon spotted frogs (Pearl
Although the Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest, in Klamath County, Oregon, documented high numbers of egg masses at Jack Creek in 1999 and 2000 (335 and 320 respectively) (Forbes and Peterson 1999, p. 6), drought conditions impacted the Oregon spotted frog populations in subsequent years. The drought occurred during the time period in which the Oregon spotted frog population dramatically declined at Jack Creek (Gervais 2011, p. 15). In 2001, those conditions restricted Oregon spotted frog breeding to three small, disjunct areas representing less than 25 percent of their typical habitat. Although there were sufficient water depths in the breeding pools in 2002, only 17 percent of historical egg mass numbers were detected, and 50 percent of the eggs did not hatch compared to the 68 to 74 percent hatch rates documented by Licht (1974, p. 618). The impacts of the drought were further complicated when Oregon spotted frog habitat was impacted by algal blooms, poor water quality, loss of protective habitat, and alteration of the bank condition (USDA 2009a, pp. 31, 33–34). By 2011, only 1 percent of historical egg mass numbers were documented at this site.
Comparisons of beaver-occupied and not occupied watersheds in Montana in relation to Columbia spotted frog populations found: (a) Beaver watersheds had four times as many lentic and breeding sites as non-beaver watersheds; (b) frog breeding sites were dispersed within beaver drainages, while non-beaver watersheds often had only one frog breeding site; (c) frog breeding sites were evenly distributed across the elevational gradient in beaver watersheds, while they were centered above the watershed midpoint in non-beaver watersheds; (d) frog breeding sites were more dispersed within drainages with evidence of beaver presence than would be expected given the configuration of the underlying lentic habitat and have persisted despite being separated by distances larger than the frog's dispersal ability; (e) beaver watersheds with an average distance of less than 3.1 mi (5 km) between breeding sites showed higher levels of connectivity than did non-beaver watersheds with an average distance of more than 3.1 mi (5 km) between breeding sites; and (f) short beaver watersheds had lower levels of genetic divergence between breeding sites than those in long non-beaver watersheds separated by the same distance, even when distances were within the commonly observed dispersal ability of the frogs (Amish 2006, entire). Columbia and Oregon spotted frogs were separated into two separate species (
By 1900, beavers had been nearly extirpated in the continental United States (Baker and Hill 2003, p. 288). Beavers have made a remarkable comeback in many areas through natural recolonization and relocation efforts (ODFW 2012, p. 1); however, their role as ecological engineers is still severely curtailed region-wide, particularly within human-populated areas, because they are often considered a pest species because they can flood roads and property and destroy trees that are valued by landowners (Baker and Hill 2003, p. 301). In at least one site, a significant Oregon spotted frog decline was attributed to the removal of a series of beaver dams that resulted in water loss within some of the breeding areas leading to high embryo mortality attributed to stranding (Hayes
The States of Washington and Oregon allow lethal removal of beavers and their dams. Under Washington State law, the beaver is classified as a furbearer (WAC 232–12–007). The owner, the owner's immediate family, an employee, or a tenant of property may shoot or trap a beaver on that property if a threat to crops exists (RCW 77.36.030). In such cases, no special trapping permit is necessary for the use of live traps. However, a special trapping permit is required for the use of all traps other than live traps (RCW 77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232–12–142). It is unlawful to release a beaver anywhere within Washington, other than on the property where it was legally trapped, without a permit to do so (RCW 77.15.250; WAC 232–12–271). To remove or modify a beaver dam, one must have a Hydraulic Project Approval—a permit issued by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for work that will use, obstruct, change, or divert the bed or flow of State waters (RCW 77.55). Beavers are present to a varying degree within all Oregon spotted frog occupied sub-basins in Washington and are maintaining breeding habitats in some areas within the South Fork Nooksack River, Black River, White Salmon River, and Middle Klickitat River sub-basins. Active removal of beavers or their dams is occurring in at least the South Fork Nooksack River, Black River, and Middle Klickitat River sub-basins and may be occurring in the other occupied sub-basins in Washington.
Beavers on public lands in Oregon are classified as Protected Furbearers by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 496.004 and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 635–050–0050. A trapping license and open season are required to trap beavers on public lands. Beavers on private lands are defined as a Predatory Animal (ORS 610.002) and private landowners
Oregon spotted frog egg-laying sites are generally characterized by low vegetation canopy coverage and a substrate at least partially covered with the previous year's emergent herbaceous vegetation (Leonard 1997, p. 3; Hayes
Loss of natural wetland and riverine disturbance processes as a result of human activities has caused, and continues to cause, degradation of Oregon spotted frog habitat. Historically, a number of natural forces created emergent wetlands favorable to Oregon spotted frogs. These forces included rivers meandering over their floodplains, removing trees and shrubs and baring patches of mineral soil; beavers felling trees and woody shrubs, trampling vegetation, and dragging limbs and logs through shallows; and summer fires burning areas that would be shallow water wetlands during the Oregon spotted frog breeding season the following spring. Today, all of these forces are greatly reduced, impaired, or have been permanently altered as a result of human activities. In addition, the current wetland management paradigm is generally a no-management approach that often results in continued invasion by invasive plants or succession to a tree- and shrub-dominated community, both of which are unsuitable for Oregon spotted frog breeding.
Invasive plants such as reed canarygrass may completely change the structure of wetland environments, and can create dense areas of vegetation unsuitable as Oregon spotted frog habitat (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 23). Reed canarygrass competitively excludes other native plant species and limits the biological and habitat diversity of host wetland and riparian habitats (Antieau 1998, p. 2). Reed canarygrass also removes large quantities of water through evapotranspiration, potentially affecting shallow groundwater hydrologic characteristics (Antieau 1998, p. 2). Reed canarygrass dominates large areas of Oregon spotted frog habitat at lower elevations (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes
Studies conducted in Washington (White 2002, pp. 45–46; Pearl and Hayes 2004, pp. 22–23) demonstrated that the quality of breeding habitats for Oregon spotted frogs is improved by reducing the height of the previous years' emergent vegetation (i.e., reed canarygrass in these cases). However, improvement in breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs was retained only if vegetation management was maintained. For example, in all occupied sub-basins in Washington and in the Klamath sub-basin in Oregon, an indirect effect of the removal of cattle grazing has been the reduction in the amount and quality of breeding and rearing habitat due to encroachment by vegetation, such as reed canarygrass and shrubs. The effects of grazing vary among sites and likely depend on a suite of factors including, but not limited to, timing, intensity, duration, and how these factors interact with seasonal habitat use patterns of Oregon spotted frog.
Reed canarygrass is present at three of the British Columbia breeding areas and is the dominant vegetation at most of the breeding areas in Washington. In Oregon, reed canarygrass is colonizing portions of Big Marsh and Little Lava Lake, both of which are headwaters to the Little Deschutes and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins, respectively. Reed canarygrass also is present in Oregon spotted frog habitat at Lava Lake, Davis Lake, Wickiup Reservoir, multiple sites along the Little Deschutes River (i.e., 7 out of 13 surveyed sites), Slough Camp, Wood River Wetland, the Klamath Marsh NWR, Fourmile Creek, and the Williamson River. The impact to Oregon spotted frogs due to habitat loss from reed canarygrass invasion has been determined through our threat analyses to be high to very high in seven sub-basins: Lower Fraser River in British Columbia and all sub-basins in Washington. The effects of reed canarygrass to Oregon spotted frog habitat are considered to be moderate in two sub-basins in Oregon: Little Deschutes River and Upper Deschutes River.
Vegetation succession was indicated as a negative factor at almost all remaining Oregon spotted frog sites analyzed by Hayes, who noted that some sites were particularly vulnerable to habitat loss where marsh-to-meadow changes were occurring (Hayes 1997, p. 45). Pearl (1999, p. 15) suggested that the aquatic habitat types necessary for Oregon spotted frog reproductive sites in lake basins exist only within a narrow successional window. As marsh size decreases due to plant succession, shallow warm water sites required by Oregon spotted frogs are lost to increased shading by woody vegetation (Pearl 1999, pp. 15–16). Investigations by Hayes (1997, p. 45) and Pearl (1999,
The United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency have several voluntary programs, including the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), CREP, and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. The WRP and CREP are voluntary programs designed to help landowners address concerns regarding the use of natural resources and promote landowner conservation. Under the WRP, landowners enter into a voluntary agreement with NRCS to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. Various enrollment options are available to landowners, including Permanent Easements, 30-Year Easements, Restoration Cost-Share Agreements, or 30-Year Contracts (USDA NRCS 2013). Under the CREP, the Farm Service Agency provides payments to landowners who sign a contract committing to keeping lands out of agricultural production for a period of 10 to 15 years. NRCS produces technical guidelines generally aimed at improving soil conditions, agricultural productivity, and water quality, which generally do not result in specific conservation measures for the protection of the Oregon spotted frog. Rather, restoration actions funded or carried out by NRCS include planting trees and shrubs in riparian areas.
These activities have had unforeseen consequences to Oregon spotted frog habitat by degrading breeding habitat because, as discussed above, tree- and shrub-dominated communities are unsuitable for Oregon spotted frog breeding. This is known to have occurred within the last 10 years at breeding locations in Black, Samish, and South Fork Nooksack Rivers in Washington (Nisqually NWR; Bohannon
Vegetation succession, particularly where natural disturbance processes are lacking, is a negative factor at almost all Oregon spotted frog sites. Structural changes to vegetation that occur through succession, whether from native or nonnative grasses, shrubs, or trees, results in decreased wetland size and amount of open water area available to frogs. Furthermore, shrub and tree encroachment increases shading of shallow warm water sites required by Oregon spotted frogs for breeding and rearing. Encroachment by lodgepole pine and other woody vegetation is occurring at multiple breeding locations in Washington and Oregon and is considered a threat in at least seven sub-basins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River, McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette River, Williamson River, Upper Klamath Lake, and Upper Klamath. Unintended loss of habitat is taking place as a result of riparian restoration activities that remove grazing and plant shrubs and trees within sub-basins occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in Washington and Oregon. Therefore, based on the best scientific information available, changes in vegetation pose a threat to Oregon spotted frogs due to habitat loss and modification throughout the range of the species.
Removal or alteration of natural riparian vegetation around watercourses or wetlands for urban or agricultural development compromises aquatic ecosystem function via reductions in biodiversity and water quality and quantity. Residential and commercial encroachment often destroys or disturbs natural vegetation, alters water flows and seasonal flooding, or results in the loss of entire wetland complexes. Agricultural practices, including grazing, can result in the rapid removal of water across the landscape for stimulation of early grass production. All of these factors have been shown to reduce the survival and reproductive capacity of Oregon spotted frogs, as discussed previously.
Although the historical impact of development has significantly reduced the abundance and geographic distributions of Oregon spotted frogs (for example, the Fraser River Valley in British Columbia, Puget Trough in Washington, and Willamette Valley in Oregon), development is currently an ongoing threat at only a few specific locations. In British Columbia, housing and residential developments continue to remove or alter habitat at Mountain and Maria Sloughs, and there are new commercial developments at Mountain Slough (COSFRT 2012, p. 26).
In Washington, some counties prohibit draining of wetlands and some counties require setbacks from wetlands (see Factor D for further information), but this is not consistent, nor consistently implemented. In addition, a large proportion of the breeding areas for Oregon spotted frogs in Washington is not technically classified as a wetland under the county definitions because these areas are seasonally flooded pastures. The private lands surrounding breeding areas for the Oregon spotted frog in most of the occupied sub-basins are presently zoned as rural or rural
Development of land along the Little Deschutes River and its tributaries in Oregon is a continued threat to the Oregon spotted frog due to loss or modification of its habitat. The rural character of the Little Deschutes River watershed, the attractive location of private property on the Little Deschutes River, and relatively inexpensive land prices have contributed to a rapidly growing population (UDWC 2002, p. 12). In the 1960s and 1970s before Oregon Statewide planning regulated growth and development, 15,000 one- and two-acre lots were created in subdivisions in the vicinity of the Little Deschutes River. Since 1989, Deschutes County has been the fastest growing county in Oregon on a percentage basis. The unincorporated areas of Deschutes County, including the lower portions of the Little Deschutes River, are projected to increase in population size by as much as 56 percent above the 2000 level over the next 20 years (UDWC 2002, p. 12). This rapid population growth rate is expected to continue into the future (UDWC 2002, p. 12), thereby increasing risks to wetland habitats that support Oregon spotted frogs in the vicinity of the Little Deschutes River.
Development in the Klamath Basin is also increasing in Oregon. The population of Klamath County increased 10.5 percent from 1990 to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008) and annual housing starts have increased by 13 percent since 2000 (Portland State University 2011 Web site). Much of the growth is outside of city boundaries, and several large residential developments are within or adjacent to wetlands that historically had the ability to support Oregon spotted frog habitat. In addition, agricultural practices, including grazing, occur extensively within all three occupied sub-basins. This has the potential to result in the desiccation or inundation of Oregon spotted frog habitat (see the “
In several riparian zones and wetland complexes in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, livestock grazing occurs within Oregon spotted frog habitat, although its effects vary with the site conditions, livestock numbers, timing, and intensity. Livestock (primarily horses and cows) can cause direct mortality by trampling adult frogs (Ross
Fourteen of twenty-eight (50 percent) sites surveyed in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon were directly or indirectly influenced (negatively and positively) by livestock grazing (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes
Moderate livestock grazing can, in some instances (for example, Dempsey Creek in Washington), benefit Oregon spotted frogs by maintaining openings in the vegetation in highly altered wetland communities (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes
None of the central Oregon Cascade breeding locations within the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests is within grazing allotments. Known breeding locations occur within allotments on the BLM Prineville District lands along Crescent Creek, Long Prairie Creek, and the Little Deschutes River. Currently, only the Crescent Creek area is affected by active grazing on BLM lands, although there is potential for grazing to occur on BLM lands along the Little Deschutes River. Grazing has been cited as an impact to riparian and wetland habitats on private lands along the Little Deschutes River (The Wetlands Conservancy, 2004, p. 22). Wetland habitats in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin have been negatively impacted by grazing through removal of riparian vegetation, which destabilizes banks and increases channel incision, resulting in less water retention in riparian wetlands and conifer encroachment (UDWC 2002, pp. 21 and 53).
Six sites in the Klamath Basin are associated with grazing: Jack Creek, Buck Lake, Parsnip Lakes, and on private lands on the Wood River, Williamson River, and adjacent to Klamath Marsh NWR. These sites are potentially vulnerable to both the direct impacts of grazing sedimentation, trampling, as well as the indirect effect of egg mass desiccation resulting from water management techniques that drain water early in frog breeding season to stimulate grass production. Livestock grazing is cited as a specific concern for Oregon spotted frogs at Jack Creek, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in Oregon (USDA 2004, pp. 56–57). Since 1999, the population has reduced from 670 breeding adults (335 egg masses) to 34 breeding adults (17 egg masses) in 2011. The two primary breeding sites in Jack Creek occur on private land that is heavily grazed in combination with USFS allotments. This intensity of grazing is expected to have degraded the quality of the Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat and reduced reproduction (Shovlain 2005).
Since 2008, current USFS management at the Jack Creek site has not permitted cattle grazing on lands occupied by Oregon spotted frogs (Markus 2012, pers. comm.). However, 419 cow/calf pairs specifically permitted for grazing have access to 61 ac (25 ha) of potential, but not currently supporting, Oregon spotted frog habitat on this 68,349-ac (27,660-ha) combination of USFS and private pasture. Within this pasture, however, there are several riparian areas accessible to grazing cattle as well as one offsite watering source installed on adjacent private land. The permittee for this pasture has grazed their private lands where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur, although the number of cattle and timing are not known. However, the permittee has also partnered with the Service to complete multiple conservation actions to benefit Oregon spotted frogs and their habitats on their private lands including—but not limited to—the installation of 2 to 3 offsite watering sources, protection of frog ponds, thinning of encroaching lodgepole pine trees, and installation of a wattle for water retention (Markus 2012, pers. comm.).
Conflicts between cattle and frogs increase when stream flows are limited, especially when cattle are using the creek for drinking (Gervais 2011, p. 15). Between 2001 and 2005, and again in 2007, drought conditions affected habitat for Oregon spotted frogs in the Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest in Oregon. However, until 2008, when grazing was restricted, 419 cow/calf pairs had access to the habitat areas associated with Oregon spotted frogs (Gervais 2011, p. 11). Cattle were observed congregating in Oregon spotted frog habitat because nearly every other water source in the allotment went dry (Simpson 2002, pers. comm.). Trampling of frogs by cattle and alterations in water quality, bank structure, and loss of protective vegetation compounded the impacts of the reduction of available habitat due to drought conditions on Oregon spotted frog reproduction (USDA 2009a, pp. 31, 33–34).
Conboy Lake NWR in Washington has completed several wetland restoration projects to restore natural hydrological processes to portions of the refuge. This enabled the NWR to maintain independent water management of several wetlands, regardless of the water-related impacts of local landowners. However, under current management, water is not retained throughout the year on most of the NWR and adjacent private wetlands, and many of these areas that had Oregon spotted frogs in the late 1990s no longer have Oregon spotted frogs.
Cattle grazing ceased at Trout Lake NAP in Washington after a monitoring study showed no apparent positive effect on the Oregon spotted frog population trends (Wilderman and Hallock 2004, p. 10), indicating either that grazing was not an effective tool for reed canarygrass management at this location, or that perhaps reed canarygrass was not as threatening to breeding frogs at this location as previously thought. This may be because winter snow pack flattens the reed canarygrass, creating a mostly sun-exposed water surface available to Oregon spotted frogs during the breeding season. The observed negative consequences of grazing, while perhaps acceptable if there was clear benefit to the Oregon spotted frog populations, were not compatible with other site management goals and posed a limitation to future restoration on the site (Wilderman and Hallock 2004, p. 14). Instead, problematic areas of reed canarygrass are being managed using ground barriers and occasional fall mowing (Hallock 2012, p. 31).
Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) must approve certain activities related to growing, harvesting, or processing timber on all local government, State, and privately owned forest lands. WDNR's mission is to protect public resources while maintaining a viable timber industry. The primary goal of the forest practices rules is to achieve protection of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and capital improvements while ensuring that harvested areas are reforested. Presently, the Washington State Forest Practices Rules do not specifically protect Oregon spotted frogs; however, they do include protection measures for surface waters and wetlands. The intent of the protection measures, such as buffers on wetlands, is to limit excess coarse and fine sediment delivery and to maintain hydrologic regimes. Tree harvest is limited in wetland buffers, which may in turn facilitate vegetation encroachment. Landowners have the option to develop a management plan for the species if it resides on their property, or if landowners choose not to develop a management plan for the species with WDFW, their forest practices application will be conditioned to protect this public resource. While the Washington State Forest Practices Rules provide some protections for the Oregon spotted frog and its habitat, the direct and indirect consequences of limiting tree harvest within the wetland buffer is vegetation encroachment that is resulting in loss of wetlands (i.e., reduced size) and shading.
NRCS is overseeing the restoration at two Samish River locations and is incorporating Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat requirements into its planned restoration (that originally included de-leveling and tree and shrub plantings in the breeding areas) (Bohannan
Since 1994, in the Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin, the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, in collaboration with private landowners, has restored approximately 8,832 ac (3,568 ha) of wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake. Several habitat restoration projects are underway in known occupied areas including Crane Creek, Sevenmile Creek, Jack Creek, and the Upper Williamson River. Restoration projects include re-channelizing creeks and rivers to provide breeding and rearing habitat, construction of breeding ponds, construction of riparian fences to exclude cattle, and the installation of alternate water sources. To date, Oregon spotted frogs have been detected in only one restored, previously unoccupied wetland area, although survey efforts in restored habitats have not yet been completed.
The BLM's Klamath Falls Field Office has initiated several habitat restoration projects within their Wood River Wetland property, including installation of water control structures, construction of breeding ponds, and canal restructuring for additional breeding areas. To date, 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) of wetland habitats associated with the Wood River Canal have been restored. However, for reasons unknown, Oregon spotted frogs have not been detected in the restored wetlands, but rather have only been associated with the canal system (BLM multiple data sources). BLM actively manages the water in the canal during the breeding season to prevent stranding and inundating Oregon spotted frog egg masses.
The Fremont-Winema National Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in the Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin has initiated a project to restore habitat along Jack Creek, which as of 2008, includes the removal of cattle from a portion of the lands owned by the USFS (Gervais 2011 p. 9). In addition, encroaching lodgepole pine (Gervais 2011 pp. 11–12) has been thinned on both USFS and private lands as a result of this project. In cooperation with adjacent private landowners, the USFS recently released seven beavers into the
The USFS has completed and continues to work on Oregon spotted frog site management plans that identify threats and management actions to reduce threats at each of the following sites: Sevenmile, Jack Creek, Buck Lake, Dilman Meadow, Hosmer Lake, Lava and Little Lava Lake, Big Marsh, Odell/Davis Lake, Little Cultus Lake, Mink Lake Basin, and Gold Lake. Implementation of management actions is voluntary and dependent upon funding, and will likely occur at the District level.
The comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for Klamath Marsh NWR includes conservation actions for maintaining or improving local habitat conditions for the benefit of Oregon spotted frogs on NWR property. These include: Restoring or maintaining hydrologic regimes, protecting and restoring ephemeral and permanent wetlands, restoring or maintaining open water and early seral vegetation communities, reevaluating or discontinuing fish stocking practices, developing comprehensive grazing strategies or adaptive management plans where livestock occur in habitat, and working locally and cooperatively to maintain and restore habitat conditions and to monitor the outcomes of management actions for Oregon spotted frog (USFWS 2010a, p. 72). The CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and are primarily used for strategic planning and priority setting; thus inclusion of a project in a CCP does not guarantee that the project will be implemented. However, implementation of the above conservation actions within the CCP could benefit a minimum of 338 breeding individuals. These actions are expected to improve the status of the Oregon spotted frog on the Klamath Marsh NWR if adequate budget allocations are provided and the projects are implemented. Existing wetland restoration activities at Klamath Marsh NWR have been limited to invasive weed management (Mauser 2012, pers. comm.).
Reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and restoration plantings continue to modify and reduce the amount and quality of habitat necessary for all Oregon spotted frog life stages. The timing and intensity of livestock grazing, or lack thereof, continues to change the quality of Oregon spotted frog habitat in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon due to increased sedimentation, increased water temperatures, and reduced water quality. Oregon spotted frogs in all currently occupied sub-basins are subject to one or more of these threats to their habitat. Eleven of the 15 occupied sub-basins are currently experiencing a high to very high level of impact, primarily due to hydrological changes/manipulations, vegetation encroachment, and reed canarygrass invasions. These impacts are ongoing, are expected to continue into the future, and affect habitat that supports all life stages of the Oregon spotted frog.
The benefits of the conservation actions to Oregon spotted frogs are site-specific, but are not sufficient to ameliorate the habitat threats at a sub-basin scale. Wetland restoration efforts have been implemented, but rarely are these specifically designed for Oregon spotted frogs, and may inadvertently reduce habitat quality for this emergent wetland-dependent species. Further, post-restoration monitoring has not been accomplished to evaluate whether these efforts are benefiting Oregon spotted frogs. Therefore, based on the best information available, the threats to Oregon spotted frog from habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment are occurring throughout the entire range of the species, and are expected to continue into the future.
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has been documented for a wide range of amphibians. During the egg-laying period, Oregon spotted frogs occur in relatively easy-to-access locations that could make them easy to collect. However, we are not aware of collection of Oregon spotted frogs for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes.
Oregon spotted frog populations may be negatively impacted by scientific studies. In all Washington breeding locations and some of the breeding locations in British Columbia and Oregon, surveys are conducted annually during the egg-laying period. While these surveys are conducted in a manner to avoid trampling of frogs and egg masses (protocol example Pearl
The WDFW has collected 7,870 eggs (through 2011) from various breeding locations on the Black River and Conboy Lake NWRs for their captive-rearing program (Tirhi and Schmidt 2011, pp. 51–55). During this period, the population has continued to decline at Conboy Lake, but the source of the decline is unclear and cannot specifically be attributed to the egg collection. The USGS and Colorado State University have been collecting eggs in the Deschutes and Klamath Basins for genetic studies since 2007, resulting in the collection of at least 3,000 eggs (Robertson and Funk 2012 pp. 8–11; Pearl 2012, pers. comm.). However, we have no evidence to indicate that Oregon spotted frogs are being overutilized for commercial,
Amphibians are affected by a variety of diseases, and some diseases are known to negatively affect declining amphibian species. Diseases that are currently known to occur in Oregon spotted frogs and have the potential to affect populations are briefly discussed below. The specific effects of disease and parasitism on Oregon spotted frogs are not well documented.
In 2007 and 2008, the USGS sampled Oregon spotted frogs at sites across Washington and Oregon;
Alone,
Laboratory studies have shown that infecting Oregon spotted frogs with
Other pathogens, such as iridoviruses (specifically
Johnson
High levels of
Human manipulation of upland areas adjacent to amphibian breeding areas and direct manipulation of the breeding areas can affect the prevalence of
Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native predators. The effects of predation may be magnified when populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further toward extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74–75).
Introduced fish species within the historical range of the Oregon spotted frog may have contributed to losses of populations. Oregon spotted frogs, which are palatable to fish, did not evolve with these introduced species and may not have the mechanisms to avoid the predatory fish that prey on the tadpoles. The microhabitat requirement of the Oregon spotted frog, unique among native ranids of the PNW, exposes it to a number of introduced fish species (Hayes 1994, p. 25), such as smallmouth bass (
Surveys from 1993 to 1997 in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon documented at least one introduced predator in 20 of 24 sites (Hayes
Demographic data indicate that sites with significant numbers of brook trout and/or fathead minnow have a skewed ratio of older spotted frogs to juvenile frogs, suggesting poor reproductive success or juvenile recruitment (Hayes 1997, pp. 42–43, 1998a). While experimental data are sparse, field surveys involving other western amphibians (e.g., Adams 1999, p. 1168; Monello and Wright 1999, pp. 299–300; Bull and Marx 2002, pp. 245–247; Vredenberg 2004; Knapp 2005, pp. 275–276; Pearl
The presence of these nonnative species has been shown to increase the time for metamorphosis and decrease the mass of native red-legged frogs (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997; Lawler
The ODFW stocks fish in most of the Cascades Lakes and two reservoirs in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin occupied by Oregon spotted frogs (Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.). In addition to stocking, there is natural production of various fish species, both native and introduced, in the lakes and reservoirs in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin and in lakes in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette sub-basins where spotted frogs occur (Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.; Ziller 2013, pers. comm.; USFS 2011a). The ODFW no longer stocks fish in any of the moving waters associated with Oregon spotted frog locations within the Klamath Basin (Tinniswood 2012, pers. comm.).
Bullfrogs introduced from eastern North America into the historical range of the Oregon spotted frog may have contributed to losses of populations. The introduction of bullfrogs may have played a role in the disappearance of Oregon spotted frogs from the Willamette Valley in Oregon and the Puget Sound area in Washington (Nussbaum
Bullfrog adults achieve larger size than native western ranids and even juvenile bullfrogs can consume native frogs (Hayes and Jennings 1986, p. 492; Pearl
Oregon spotted frogs are more susceptible to predation by bullfrogs than are northern red-legged frogs (Pearl
The ability of bullfrogs and Oregon spotted frogs to coexist may be related to differences in seasonal and permanent wetland use. However, a substantial bullfrog population has likely coexisted with Oregon spotted frogs for nearly 50 years in Conboy Lake in Washington (Rombough
Green frogs (
Despite considerable knowledge about the habitat and management requirements for Oregon spotted frog, refuge management at the Conboy Lake NWR remains complex as habitat needs and the abatement of other stressors often conflict with the conventional intensive wetland management that occurs on the refuge (USFWS, 2010b, p. 64). The historical Conboy Lake basin in Washington likely retained water for 10 to 12 months in most years. Currently, it retains water only during wet years and is drained annually by the Conboy Lake NWR to control bullfrogs for the benefit of Oregon spotted frogs. However, the draining of the lakebed forces all surviving bullfrogs, fish, and Oregon spotted frogs into the canal system for the fall and winter, increasing potential predation on Oregon spotted frogs.
In the Upper and Little Deschutes River sub-basins in Oregon, there has been little effort to control invasive predators. Bullfrog eradication has been attempted at two sites within the Upper and Little Deschutes sub-basins: Sunriver and Crosswater, respectively. However, it appears that bullfrogs may be increasing in the Sunriver area (Bowerman 2012, pers. comm.).
Current predator or disease conservation efforts in the Klamath Basin in Oregon are limited to bullfrog control or eradication. The USGS has conducted a bullfrog eradication program on Crane Creek since bullfrogs appeared in 2010. In addition, the BLM has been controlling and reducing bullfrogs and analyzing the gut contents of bullfrogs at all life stages on their Wood River property in Oregon for 6 years. Bullfrog detections and collection have decreased in different areas of the canal in recent years (Roninger 2012, pers. comm.). The number of bullfrogs removed and seen at this site has decreased, and in the last few years, the bulk of the bullfrog removal has been from the north canal and Seven-mile canal areas (outside the Oregon spotted frog site), which is considered to be the strongest source areas for movement into the Oregon spotted frog site (Roninger 2012, pers. comm). However, despite these efforts, bullfrogs continue to persist in these Oregon spotted frog habitats.
Introduced fish species prey on tadpoles, negatively affect overwintering habitat, and can significantly threaten Oregon spotted frog populations, especially during droughts, as aquatic habitat areas become smaller and escape cover is reduced. Cushman
Therefore, based on our review of the best information available, we conclude that predation is a threat to Oregon spotted frogs throughout the entire range of the species and is expected to continue into the future.
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such specie. . . .” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or remove threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
In Canada, few regulatory mechanisms protect or conserve Oregon spotted frogs. In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs are on the Conservation Data Centre's Red List. The Red List includes ecological communities, indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated, endangered, or threatened in British Columbia; placing taxa on the Red List flags them as being at risk and requiring investigation, but does not confer any protection (British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2012, p. 1).
The Oregon spotted frog was determined to be endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 1999, with status reexamined and confirmed in 2000 and 2011, and it received an endangered determination under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003 (COSFRT 2012, p. 1). SARA makes it an offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed species that is extirpated, endangered or threatened; or to possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed species that is extirpated, endangered or threatened, or any part or derivative of such an individual (S.C. ch. 29 section 32); or damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction (S.C. ch, 29 sections 33, 58). For species other than birds, the prohibitions on harm to individuals and destruction of residences are limited to Federal lands. Three of the four breeding locations in Canada occur wholly or partially on private lands, which are not subject to SARA prohibitions (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38).
Habitat protection in British Columbia is limited to the Federal Fisheries Act, British Columbia Water Act, and the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). The Federal Fisheries Act limits activities that can cause harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, with the primary goal being no net loss of fish habitat. The British Columbia Water Act is the principal law for managing the diversion and use of provincial water resources. License holders are entitled to divert and use water; store water; construct, maintain, and operate anything capable of or used for the proper diversion, storage, carriage, distribution, and use of the water or the power produced from it; alter or improve a stream or channel for any purpose; and construct fences, screens, and fish or game guards across streams for the purpose of conserving fish and wildlife (British Columbia Water Act Part 2, section 5). The Riparian Areas Regulation was enacted under Section 12 of the Fish Protection Act and calls on local governments to protect riparian fish habitat during residential, commercial, and industrial development. The habitat protections under these Canadian Acts are designed to benefit fish species. As discussed under
No Federal laws specifically protect the Oregon spotted frog. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
In Washington and Oregon, current section 404 regulations provide for the issuance of nationwide permits for at least 15 of the 52 categories of activities identified under the nationwide permit program (USACOE 2012a, pp. 1–46),
For nationwide permits, Corps notification may not be required depending upon the project type and the amount of wetland to be impacted. Impacts to wetlands may be authorized with no compensatory mitigation in some cases. In other cases, wetland impacts may be authorized if the permittee demonstrates the project footprint has been designed to avoid most wetland impacts and unavoidable impacts can be adequately mitigated through wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement. For example, nationwide permits authorize the discharge of fill material into 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of wetlands with no requirement for compensatory mitigation. In situations where compensatory wetland mitigation is required, in kind mitigation is preferred but not required.
A Washington State wetland mitigation evaluation study (Johnson
Oregon spotted frogs are a Priority Species under WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 68). As a Priority Species, the Oregon spotted frog may receive some protection of its habitat under environmental reviews of applications for county or municipal development permits and through implementation of priority habitats and species management recommendations. Priority habitat and species management recommendations for this species include maintaining stable water levels and natural flow rates; maintaining vegetation along stream banks or pond edges; avoidance of introducing nonnative amphibians, reptiles, or fish; avoidance of removing algae from rearing areas; avoiding alteration of muddy substrates; controlling stormwater runoff away from frog habitat; avoiding application of pesticides in or adjacent to waterbodies used by Oregon spotted frogs; and surveying within the historical range of the species (Nordstrom and Milner 1997, pp. 6–5—6–6).
The Clean Water Act requires States to set water quality standards to protect beneficial uses, identify sources of pollution in waters that fail to meet State water quality standards (Section 303(d)), and to develop water quality plans to address those pollutants. Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, authority for implementing this law has been delegated to the State. Washington State adopted revised water quality standards for temperature and intergravel dissolved oxygen in December 2006, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved these revised standards in February 2008 (EPA 2008). Although candidate species were not the focus, proponents believed that the proposed standards would likely protect native aquatic species. The temperature standards are intended to restore thermal regimes to protect sensitive native salmonids, and, if temperature is not a limiting factor in sustaining viable salmonid populations, other native species would likely be protected (EPA 2007, p. 14).
The State has developed water quality plans for the Lower Nooksack, Samish, and Upper Chehalis Rivers; however, as of 2008 (most recent freshwater listing), portions of the Sumas River; Black Slough in the South Fork Nooksack River sub-basin; portions of the Samish River; segments of the Black River; segments of Dempsey, Allen, and Beaver Creeks in the Black River drainage; and a segment in the upper portion of Trout Lake Creek were listed by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) as not meeting water quality standards for a variety of parameters, including temperature, fecal coliform, pH, and dissolved oxygen (see
Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, authority for implementing this law has been delegated to the State. Oregon adopted revised water quality standards for temperature, intergravel dissolved oxygen, and anti-degradation in December 2003, and EPA approved these revised standards in March 2004 (EPA 2004). Although candidate species were not the focus, it was believed that the proposed standards would likely protect native aquatic species. The proposed temperature standards are intended to restore thermal regimes to protect sensitive native salmonids and,
Oregon's Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795–990) requires people who plan to remove or fill material in waters of the State to obtain a permit from the Department of State Lands. Wetlands and waterways in Oregon are protected by both State and Federal laws. Projects impacting waters often require both a State removal-fill permit, issued by the Department of State Lands (DSL), and a Federal permit issued by the Corps. A permit is required only if 50 cubic yards (cy) or more of fill or removal will occur. The removal fill law does not regulate the draining of wetlands (see “Local Laws and Regulations,” below).
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions in the State to designate and protect critical areas. The State defines five broad categories of critical areas, including (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. The County Area Ordinance (CAO) is the county regulation that most directly addresses protection of the critical areas mapped by each county.
Frequently, local government will have adopted zoning regulations and comprehensive land use plans that apply both within and outside shoreline areas. When these codes are applied within the shoreline area, there may be differences in the zoning regulations and the plan policies as compared with the regulations and policies of the SMP. Because the SMP is technically a State law (i.e., WAC), the requirements of the SMP will prevail in the event of a conflict with the local zoning or plan. Generally, however, a conflict will not exist if the zoning or plan requirements are more protective of the shoreline environment than the SMP. For example, if the zoning district allows a density of one unit per acre, and the SMP allows a density of two units per, the requirements of the more restrictive code would prevail.
Within each county in Washington, the SMP and CAO are the regulations that most directly address protection of Oregon spotted frog habitat. A brief discussion of the current SMPs and CAOs for the five counties where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur follows.
Whatcom County: Whatcom County updated its Shoreline Management Program (known as a Shoreline Master Program in the Growth Management Act) in 2008 (Whatcom County Shoreline Management Program 2008). Based on interpretation of the 2008 Shoreline Management Program, the known Oregon spotted frog occupied locations in the Lower Chilliwack or South Fork Nooksack River sub-basins are not “shorelines.” Samish River within Whatcom County is designated as Conservancy Shoreline that provides specific allowed uses and setbacks. Presently, the two primary uses of this area are agricultural and residential, both of which are allowed under the Shoreline Management Program, with some restrictions. Restrictions include shoreline setbacks of 15–20 ft (4.5–6.1 m) and allowance of no more than 10 percent impervious surface (although it is uncertain whether this is applicable on a per-project, per-acre, or per-basin basis). One of the allowed uses is restoration, which is focused on recovery of salmon and bull trout. Many of the restoration actions targeting salmon and bull trout recovery are not conducive to maintaining emergent wetland vegetation stages necessary to maintain Oregon spotted frog egg-laying habitat. Some activities would require a permit that must be reviewed and approved by Whatcom County and the WDOE for consistency.
The Whatcom County CAO that is the most relevant to Oregon spotted frogs applies to wetland areas, which are present in the three sub-basins where Oregon spotted frogs occur in this county. Activities in all wetlands are regulated unless the wetland is 1/10 ac or smaller in size; however, activities that can destroy or modify Oregon spotted frog habitat can still occur under the existing CAO. Activities that are conditionally allowed include surface water discharge; storm water management facilities; storm water conveyance or discharge facilities; public roads, bridges, and trails; single-family developments; and onsite sewage disposal systems. Buffers and mitigation are required, but can be adjusted by the county. In general, wetlands and the associated wetland buffer CAOs target an avoidance strategy, which may not be beneficial to the maintenance of Oregon spotted frog emergent wetland habitat on a long-term basis in areas where reed canarygrass is present. Within the areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in the three sub-basins, all breeding habitat is within seasonally flooded areas, which may or may not be defined as wetlands. Rather than an avoidance strategy, these areas may require management actions to remove reed canarygrass in order to maintain breeding habitat and provide for Oregon spotted frog persistence. Within Whatcom County, protective measures for Oregon spotted frogs are afforded under both the SMP and the CAOs, although no measures are specifically directed toward this species.
Skagit County: Skagit County's revisions to its SMP are under review (
The Skagit County CAO designates lands adjacent to the Samish River where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur as Rural Resource or Agricultural. These land designations and the associated allowed activities are intended to provide some protection of hydrological functions, but they are primarily designed to retain a rural setting (low residential density) or to ensure the stability and productivity of agriculture and forestry in the county, which has some benefits to the Oregon spotted frog.
Thurston County: Thurston County's revision of its SMP is currently under way, and until the revised SMP is completed and approved, the 1990 SMP remains in effect (Thurston County SMP 1990). The majority of the areas within the Black River that are known to be occupied by Oregon spotted frogs are either undesignated (primarily the tributaries) or designated as Natural or Conservancy Environments. Two small areas are designated as Urban at the town of Littlerock and along Beaver Creek. Fish Pond Creek, a known Oregon spotted frog breeding location, is within the designated Tumwater Urban Growth Area. Within the Natural Environment designation areas, most activity types are prohibited, although livestock grazing, low-intensity recreation, low-density (1 domicile per 10 ac) residences, and conditional shoreline alterations are allowed. Within Conservancy Environments, most activities are conditionally allowed, and would require a permit that must be reviewed and approved by Thurston County and WDOE for consistency with the SMP.
Thurston County approved a revision to the CAO in July 2012. The Thurston County CAO that is the most relevant to Oregon spotted frogs addresses wetlands, although the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter and the 100-year floodplain and Channel Migration Zone designations are also applicable. Activities in most wetlands are regulated, other than those less than or equal to 1,000 square feet (ft
Skamania County: Skamania County's revision to its SMP is under way, and until revised, the 1980 SMP is in effect (Skamania County SMP 1980). According to the 1980 SMP, Trout Lake Creek is not a shoreline of Skamania County. The portions of Trout Lake Creek that are in Skamania County have no designated critical areas. Therefore, the SMP and CAO are not applicable to Oregon spotted frog habitat in Skamania County.
Klickitat County: Klickitat County's SMP was adopted in 1998, and revised in 2007 (Klickitat County SMP 2007). Based on the 2007 SMP, only Trout Lake Creek is considered a “shoreline,” and within the area occupied by Oregon spotted frogs, regulations for both Natural and Conservancy Environments apply. Within the Natural Environments, most activity types are prohibited, except for nonintensive pasturing or grazing, recreation (access trails/passive uses), bulkheads (conditional uses), and shoreline alterations (conditional). Within Conservancy Environments, most activities are conditionally allowed, and require a permit that must be reviewed and approved by Klickitat County and WDOE for consistency.
Klickitat County's CAO was adopted in 2001, and amended in 2004. Mapping of critical areas was not available, so our analysis includes only wetlands provisions. Activities in all wetlands greater than 2,500 ft
Counties in Oregon within the range of Oregon spotted frog may have zoning ordinances that reflect protections set forth during the Goal 5 planning process. The following will briefly discuss these within each county where Oregon spotted frogs are currently known to occur.
Deschutes County: In accordance with the Statewide planning process
Klamath County: Article 57 of the Klamath County Comprehensive Plan Policy (KCCPP) and associated Klamath County Development Code (KCDC) mandates provisions to preserve significant natural and cultural resources; address the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of conflicting uses upon significant natural and cultural resources; and permit development in a manner that does not adversely impact identified resource values (KCDC 2005, p. 197). This plan identifies significant wetlands, riparian areas, Class I streams, and fish habitat as a significant resource and identifies potentially conflicting uses including shoreline development or alteration, removal of riparian vegetation, filling or removing material, in-stream modification, introduction of pollutants, water impoundments, and drainage or channelization (KCCPP 2005, pp. 33–34, KCDC 2005, p. 199). All land uses that represent these conflicting uses are reviewed and applicants must clearly demonstrate that the proposed use will not negatively impact the resource (KCDC 2005, p. 200; KCCPP 2005, p. 25). However, all accepted farm practices or forest practices are exempt from this provision (KCDC 2005, p. 198), including (but not limited to) buildings, wineries, mineral exploration, and, under certain circumstances, the establishment of golf courses and agricultural and commercial industries (KCDC 2005, pp. 160–163, 176–177). If any of these practices disturb less than 50 cy (38.2 m
Jackson County: No specific county regulations pertain to wetlands within Jackson County ordinances. This county relies on the Oregon DSL to regulate the development and protection of wetlands (Skyles 2012, pers. comm.).
The existing regulatory mechanisms described above are not sufficient to reduce or remove threats to the Oregon spotted frog habitat, particularly habitat loss and degradation. The lack of essential habitat protection under Federal, State, Provincial, and local laws leaves this species at continued risk of habitat loss and degradation in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. The review of impacts to wetlands under the Clean Water Act is minimal, and several occupied sub-basins in Washington and Oregon do not meet water quality standards. In many cases, laws and regulations that pertain to retention and restoration of wetland and riverine areas are designed to be beneficial to fish species, specifically salmonids, resulting in the unintentional elimination or degradation of Oregon spotted frog habitat. For example, CAOs in some Washington counties prohibit grazing within the riparian corridor, which is an active management technique that, properly applied, can be used to control invasive reed canarygrass.
Additional regulatory flexibility would be desirable for actively maintaining habitat in those areas essential for the conservation of Oregon spotted frog. We note that the area where these potential incompatibilities apply are limited in scope (i.e., approximately 5,000 ac (2,000 ha) and 20 mi (33 km) along the Black Slough and Sumas, Samish, and Black Rivers in Washington), because the area inhabited by Oregon spotted frogs is quite small relative to the extensive range of salmonids. In other cases, no regulations address threats related to the draining or development of wetlands or hydrologic modifications, which can eliminate or degrade Oregon spotted frog habitat. In summary, degradation of habitat for the Oregon spotted frog is ongoing despite existing regulatory mechanisms. These regulatory mechanisms have been insufficient to significantly reduce or remove the threats to the Oregon spotted frog. Therefore, based upon our review of the best information available, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce the threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
Most species' populations fluctuate naturally in response to weather events, disease, predation, or other factors. These factors, however, have less impact on a species with a wide and continuous distribution. In addition, smaller, isolated populations are generally more likely to be extirpated by stochastic events and genetic drift (Lande 1988, pp. 1456–1458). Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations comprise fewer than 50 adult frogs, are isolated from other breeding locations, and may already be stressed by other factors, such as drought or predation, and are then more vulnerable to random, naturally occurring events. Where Oregon spotted frog locations have small population sizes and are isolated, their vulnerability to extirpation from factors such as fluctuating water levels, disease, and predation increases.
Funk
Modeling across a variety of amphibian taxa suggests that pond-breeding frogs have high temporal variances of population abundances and high local extinction rates relative to other groups of amphibians, with smaller frog populations undergoing disproportionately large fluctuations in
Oregon spotted frogs concentrate their breeding efforts in relatively few locations (Hayes
Egg mass count data suggest a positive correlation and significant link between site size and Oregon spotted frog breeding population size (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 12). Larger sites are more likely to provide the seasonal microhabitats required by Oregon spotted frogs, have a more reliable prey base, and include overwintering habitat. The minimum amount of habitat thought to be required to maintain an Oregon spotted frog population is about 10 ac (4 ha) (Hayes 1994, Part II pp. 5 and 7). Smaller sites generally have a small number of frogs and, as described above, are more vulnerable to extirpation. Some sites in Oregon are at or below the 10-ac (4-ha) threshold; however, Pearl and Hayes (2004, p. 14) believe that these sites were historically subpopulations within a larger breeding complex and Oregon spotted frogs may only be persisting in these small sites because the sites exchange migrants or seasonal habitat needs are provided nearby.
Movement studies suggest Oregon spotted frogs are limited in their overland dispersal and potential to recolonize sites. Oregon spotted frog movements are associated with aquatic connections (Watson
In British Columbia, the distance between the Morris Valley, Mountain Slough, and Maria Slough locations is about 8 km and each of these locations is 50–60 km from Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove, making all of the known populations isolated from one another (COSFRT 2012, p. 15). In addition, suitable wetland habitat between any two of these locations is highly fragmented, and movement between populations is unlikely to occur. Based on this information and the small number of breeding individuals (fewer than 350), the Canadian Oregon spotted frog recovery team found that the risk from demographic and environmental stochastic events is high and could result in further local extirpations (COSFRT 2012, p. v).
In five of the six extant sub-basins in Washington, Oregon spotted frogs are restricted to one watershed within the sub-basin. Within four of these sub-basins (South Fork Nooksack, Samish, White Salmon, and Middle Klickitat Rivers), the known breeding locations are aquatically connected, such that movements could occur and facilitate genetic exchange. In the Lower Chilliwack, Oregon spotted frogs are currently known to occur from only one breeding location in one watershed (Sumas River). There may be additional locations within 3.1 mi (5 km) that are aquatically connected, but further surveys would be needed in order to make this determination. In the Black River, known breeding locations occur along the mainstem, as well as in six tributaries. Oregon spotted frogs in Fish Pond Creek are likely isolated from Oregon spotted frogs in the rest of the Black River system due to changes in the outflow of Black Lake. Black Lake Ditch was constructed in 1922, and a pipeline at the outlet of the Black Lake to Black River was constructed in the 1960s; both of these structures changed the flow such that Black Lake drains to the north, except during high flows rather than down the Black River as it did historically (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003, pp. 2, 3, 5, 24). Oregon spotted frogs in the other five tributaries may also be isolated from each other because there is little evidence that the frogs use the Black River to move between tributaries, although breeding locations in these tributaries are aquatically connected via the Black River.
In Oregon, two of the eight extant sub-basins contain single, isolated populations of Oregon spotted frogs: Lower Deschutes River (i.e., Camas Prairie) and Middle Fork Willamette River (i.e., Gold Lake). The McKenzie River sub-basin contains two populations of Oregon spotted frogs that are in close proximity but have no apparent hydrologic connection to each other or to populations in other sub-basins. In the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon spotted frog breeding sites are found throughout two sub-basins: The Upper Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River. These two sub-basins are aquatically connected at the confluence of the Little Deschutes River and the mainstem Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir. Genetic exchange likely occurs between Oregon spotted frogs on the lower reach of the Little Deschutes River and those along the Deschutes River at Sunriver where breeding occurs within 3.1 mi (5 km). The Wickiup dam and regulated flows out of the reservoir limit connectivity for Oregon spotted frogs to move within the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin, such that connectivity between the populations above and below the dam are unlikely. There are at least five breeding locations below Wickiup Reservoir, two of which are within 6 mi (10 km) but separated by a waterfall along the Deschutes River. Above Wickiup Reservoir, there are approximately six clusters of breeding sites that may be isolated from each other by lack of hydrologic connectivity
In the Little Deschutes River sub-basin, approximately 23 known breeding locations are within five watersheds: Upper, Middle and Lower Little Deschutes River; Crescent Creek; and Long Prairie. Most breeding locations throughout the Little Deschutes River sub-basin are within 6 mi (10 km) of each other, and, given that much of the private land is unsurveyed, the distance between breeding areas is likely smaller. In the lower reach of the Little Deschutes River near the confluence with the Deschutes River where more extensive surveys have been conducted, breeding sites are within 3.1 mi (5 km). Wetland complexes are extensive and continuous along the Little Deschutes River and its tributaries, which likely provides connectivity between breeding areas. Regulated flows out of Crescent Lake may affect the aquatic connectivity between breeding locations, although the impacts to Oregon spotted frog connectivity are not fully understood. The Long Prairie watershed also has been hydrologically altered by the historical draining of wetlands and ditching to supply irrigation water. Connectivity between three known breeding locations within this watershed is likely affected by the timing and duration of regulated flows, and historic ditching for irrigation.
Oregon spotted frogs are found in six watersheds within three sub-basins of the Klamath River Basin in Oregon (Williamson River, Upper Klamath Lake, and Upper Klamath). Within the Williamson River sub-basin, individuals in the Jack Creek watershed are isolated from other populations due to lack of hydrologic connectivity. The Klamath Marsh and Upper Williamson populations are aquatically connected such that movements could occur and facilitate genetic exchange, although this presumed gene flow has not been demonstrated by recent genetic work (Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10).
The Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin populations are found in two watersheds: Wood River and Klamath Lake. Populations within and adjacent to the Wood River are aquatically connected and genetically similar (Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10). However, while the Wood River populations and the Klamath Lake populations have genetic similarities (Robertson and Funk 2012, pp. 10, 11), altered hydrologic connections, distances (>6 mi (terrestrial) (10 km)), and invasive species have created inhospitable habitat. These conditions make it unlikely that individual frogs are able to move between watersheds or establish additional breeding complexes along the current hydrologic system. The only potential for hydrologic connectivity and movement between populations in the Klamath Lake populations is between Sevenmile Creek and Crane Creek, and between the individual breeding complexes on the Wood River in the Wood River watershed. The Upper Klamath sub-basin's Parsnip Lakes and Buck Lake populations are isolated from each other and the other Klamath Basin populations (Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 5) due to great hydrological distances (>20 mi (32 km)) and barriers (inhospitable habitat and dams).
Poor water quality and water contamination are playing a role in the decline of Oregon spotted frogs, and water quality concerns have been specifically noted within six of the occupied sub-basins (see Table 2 under
A reduction of growth or development would prolong an individual's larval period, thus making it more susceptible to predators for a longer period of time or resulting in immobility during periods of time when movement between habitats may be necessary (Mann
There are two agents commonly used for mosquito abatement within the range of Oregon spotted frog:
We also evaluated the indirect effect that
Although the effects on amphibians of rotenone, which is used to remove undesirable fish from lakes, are poorly understood, mortality likely occurs at treatment levels used on fish (McAllister
Water acidity (low pH) can inhibit fertilization and embryonic development in amphibians, reduce their growth and survival through physiological alterations, and produce developmental anomalies (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 498–499; Boyer and Grue 1995, p. 353). A low pH may enhance the effects of other factors, such as activating heavy metals in sediments. An elevated pH, acting singly or in combination with other factors such as low dissolved oxygen, high water temperatures, and elevated un-ionized ammonia levels, may have detrimental effects on developing frog embryos (Boyer and Grue 1995, p. 354). Concerns about pH levels have been identified in sub-basins occupied by the Oregon spotted frog.
Required dissolved oxygen levels for Oregon spotted frogs have not been evaluated; however, a number of studies have been conducted on amphibians that indicate that the amount of dissolved oxygen can affect all life stages. Low oxygen levels can affect the rate of egg development, time to hatching, and development stage at hatching. For example, Mills and Barnhart (1999, p. 182) found that embryos of two salamanders developed more slowly and hatching was delayed. In contrast, in two ranid frog species, low oxygen levels resulted in embryos hatching sooner and in a less developed stage (Mills and Barnhart 1999, p. 182). As dissolved oxygen levels decreased below 4.0 to 4.25 parts per million, Wassersug and Seibert (1975, pp. 90–93), found tadpoles of
Marco
Elevated sources of nutrient inputs into river and wetland systems can result in eutrophic (nutrient-rich) conditions, characterized by increased productivity, such as blooms of algae, that can produce a high pH and low dissolved oxygen. Increased eutrophic conditions in the Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin may have contributed to the absence of Oregon spotted frogs. Beginning in 2002, algal blooms, poor water quality, and low dissolved oxygen were documented in Jack Creek, during which a decline in Oregon spotted frog reproduction was also documented (Oertley 2005, pers. comm.).
Water quality concerns have been documented in several waterbodies occupied by the Oregon spotted frog. In Washington, portions of the Sumas River; Black Slough in the South Fork Nooksack sub-basin; portions of the Samish River; segments of the Black River; segments of Dempsey, Allen, and Beaver Creeks in the Black River sub-basin; and a segment in the upper portion of Trout Lake Creek are listed by the WDOE as not meeting water quality standards for a variety of parameters, including temperature, fecal coliform, pH, and dissolved oxygen. In Oregon, many of the streams associated with Oregon spotted frog habitat are listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as not meeting water quality standards for multiple parameters: (1) Little Deschutes River—temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll A, pH, aquatic weeds or algae; (2) Deschutes River—temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, sedimentation; (3) Middle Fork Willamette River—sedimentation; (4) Upper Klamath—temperature; and (5) Williamson River—sedimentation.
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs at Morris Valley, Mountain Slough, and Maria Slough are in largely agricultural areas. Agricultural runoff includes fertilizers (including manure); runoff or percolation into the groundwater from manure piles (Rouse
Although more research is needed, Johnson
Oregon spotted frogs are highly aquatic throughout their life cycle, and are thus likely to experience extended exposure to any waterborne contaminants. Poor water quality parameters and contaminants may act singly or in combination with other factors to result in inhibited fertilization and embryonic development, developmental anomalies, or reduced growth and survival. More work on the species' ecotoxicology is warranted. However, reduced water quality is documented in a number of occupied sub-basins, and where this overlap occurs we consider poor water quality and contaminants to be threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
Hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and closely related frog species is unlikely to affect the survival of the Oregon spotted frog. Natural hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and Cascade frogs has been demonstrated experimentally and verified in nature (Haertel and Storm 1970, pp. 436–444; Green 1985, p. 263). However, the offspring are infertile, and the two species seldom occur together. Hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and red-legged frogs has also been confirmed (I.C. Phillipsen and K. McAllister cited in Hallock 2013, p. 7), but it is unknown if the hybrids are fertile. Because Oregon spotted frog and Columbia spotted frog populations are not known to occur together, based on the best available information, we do not consider hybridization to be a threat to Oregon spotted frogs.
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; Solomon
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, the species does not necessarily meet the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” under the Act. If a species is listed as an endangered or threatened species, knowledge regarding the vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the only or the best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). Therefore, we use “downscaled” projections when they are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses of a given species (see Glick
The climate in the PNW has already experienced a warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius (C) (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F)) during the 20th century (Mote
Watersheds that are rain dominated (such as the Fraser River in British Columbia and the Black River in Washington) will likely experience higher winter streamflow because of increases in average winter precipitation, but overall will experience relatively little change with respect to streamflow timing (Elsner
Transient basins (mixed rain- and snowmelt-dominant usually in mid elevations, such as Lower Chilliwack, SF Nooksack, White Salmon, and Middle Klickitat Rivers sub-basins in Washington) will likely experience significant shifts in streamflow and water temperature, becoming rain dominant as winter precipitation falls more as rain and less as snow, and undergo more severe summer low-flow periods and more frequent days with intense winter flooding (Elsner
Snowmelt-dominated watersheds, such as White Salmon in Washington and the Upper Deschutes, Little Deschutes, and Klamath River sub-basins in Oregon, will likely become transient, resulting in reduced peak spring streamflow, increased winter streamflow, and reduced late summer flow (Littell
In Washington, the snow water equivalent measured on April 1 is projected to decrease by 28 to 30 percent across the State by the 2020s, 38 to 46 percent by the 2040s, and 56 to 70 percent by the 2080s, and the areas with elevations below 3,280 ft (1,000 m) will experience the largest decreases in snowpack, with reductions of 68 to 80 percent by the 2080s (Elsner
Climate change models predict that water temperatures will rise throughout Oregon as air temperatures increase into the 21st century. A decline in summer stream flow may exacerbate water temperature increases as the lower volume of water absorbs solar radiation (Chang and Jones 2010, p. 134).
Analyses of the hydrologic responses of the upper Deschutes basin (including the Upper and Little Deschutes River sub-basins) and the Klamath Basin to climate change scenarios indicates that the form of precipitation will shift from predominately snow to rain and cause decreasing spring recharge and runoff and increasing winter recharge and runoff (Waibel 2011, pp. 57–60; Mayer and Naman 2011, p. 3). However, there is spatial variation within the Deschutes sub-basins as to where the greatest increases in recharge and runoff will occur (Waibel 2011, pp. 57–60). Changes in seasonality of stream flows may be less affected by climate change along the crest of the Cascades in the upper watersheds of the Deschutes, Klamath, and Willamette River basins in Oregon, where many rivers receive groundwater recharge from subterranean aquifers and springs (Chang and Jones 2010, p. 107). Summer stream flows may thus be sustained in high Cascade basins that are groundwater fed (Chang and Jones 2010, p. 134). Conversely, Mayer and Naman (2011, p. 1) indicate that streamflow into Upper Klamath Lake will display absolute decreases in July–September base flows in groundwater basins as compared to surface-dominated basins. This earlier discharge of water in the spring will result in less streamflow in the summer (Mayer and Naman 2011, p. 12).
Although predictions of climate change impacts do not specifically address Oregon spotted frogs, short- and long-term changes in precipitation patterns and temperature regimes will likely affect wet periods, winter snow pack, and flooding events (Chang and Jones 2010). These changes are likely to affect amphibians through a variety of direct and indirect pathways, such as range shifts, breeding success, survival, dispersal, breeding phenology, availability and quality of aquatic habitats, food webs, competition, spread of diseases, and the interplay among these factors (Blaustein
Amphibians are susceptible to many types of pathogens including trematodes, copepods, fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, and viruses. Changes in temperature and precipitation could alter host-pathogen interactions and/or result in range shifts resulting in either beneficial or detrimental impacts on the amphibian host (Blaustein
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), maintains voluntary agreements with private landowners concerning application of pesticides within the United States. Based on their 2010 operational procedures, all waterbodies (rivers, ponds, reservoirs, streams, vernal pools, wetlands, etc.) will be avoided by a minimum of a 50-foot buffer for ground application of bait, a 200-foot buffer for aerial application of bait, and a 500-foot buffer for the aerial application of liquids (USDA APHIS 2010, p. 4). As previously described under other threat factors, conservation efforts may also help reduce the threat of other natural or manmade factors affecting the species.
Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations are small and isolated from other breeding locations. Moreover, due to their fidelity to breeding locations and vulnerability to fluctuating water levels, predation, and low overwinter survival, Oregon spotted frogs can experience rapid population turnovers that they may not be able to overcome. Genetic work indicates low genetic diversity within and high genetic differentiation among the six Oregon spotted frog groups identified by Blouin, and each of these groups has the signature of complete isolation with two groups showing indications of recent genetic drift. Poor water quality parameters and contaminants may act singly or in combination with other factors to result in inhibited fertilization and embryonic development, developmental anomalies, or reduced growth and survival. Oregon spotted frogs in every occupied sub-basin are subject to more than one stressor, such as loss or reduced quality of habitat and predation and, therefore, may be more susceptible to mortality and sublethal effects. The changing climate may exacerbate these stressors. Therefore, based on the best information available, we conclude that other natural or manmade factors are a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, which has significant population effects occurring throughout the entire (current) range of the species and these effects are expected to continue into the future.
The Oregon spotted frog faces several threats, and all occupied sub-basins are
Habitat management and a warming climate may improve conditions for pathogens and predators.
Amphibian declines may frequently be associated with multiple correlated factors (Adams 1999, pp. 1167–1169). Two of the greatest threats to freshwater systems in western North America, exotic species and hydrological changes, are often correlated. In addition, occurrence and abundance of bullfrogs may be linked with invasions by nonnative fish (Adams
Amphibians are affected by complex interactions of abiotic and biotic factors, and are subjected simultaneously to numerous interacting stressors. For example, contaminants and UV–B radiation may result in mortality or induce sublethal effects on their own, but they may have synergistic, interaction effects that exceed the additive effects when combined. Some stressors, such as contaminants, may hamper the immune system, making amphibians more susceptible to pathogenic infections (Kiesecker 2002, p. 9902). Predator presence can alter the behavior of amphibians, resulting in more or less exposure to UV–B radiation (Michel and Burke 2011), thereby altering the rate of malformations. Climate-driven dry events that result in lower water levels may concentrate contaminants, as well as increase the amount of exposure to UV–B radiation. While any one of these individual stressors may not be a concern, a contaminant added to increased UV–B radiation exposure and a normally healthy population level of
The historical loss of Oregon spotted frog habitats and lasting anthropogenic changes in natural disturbance processes are exacerbated by the introduction of reed canarygrass, nonnative predators, and potentially climate change. In addition, current regulatory mechanisms and voluntary incentive programs designed to benefit fish species have inadvertently led to the continuing decline in quality of Oregon spotted frog habitats in some locations. The current wetland and stream vegetation management paradigm is generally a no-management or restoration approach that often results in succession to a tree- and shrub-dominated community that unintentionally degrades or eliminates remaining or potential suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog breeding. Furthermore, incremental wetland loss or degradation continues under the current regulatory mechanisms. If left unmanaged, these factors are anticipated to result in the eventual elimination of remaining suitable Oregon spotted frog habitats or populations. The persistence of habitats required by the species is now largely management dependent.
Conservation efforts to ameliorate impacts from habitat degradation and predators are currently under way; however, the benefits of these conservation actions to Oregon spotted frogs are site-specific and do not counteract the impacts at a sub-basin scale. The cumulative effects of these threats are more than additive, and removing one threat does not ameliorate the others and may actually result in an increase in another threat. For example, removing livestock grazing to improve water quality—without continuing to manage the vegetation—can allow invasive reed canarygrass, trees, and shrubs to grow and effectively eliminate egg-laying habitat.
Therefore, based on the best scientific information available, we conclude that the cumulative effects from factors discussed in Factors A, C, and E, combined with the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms discussed under Factor D, are a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, and these threats are significantly affecting populations throughout the entire range of the species. Moreover, these threats are expected to continue into the future.
In the proposed rule published on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53582), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by October 28, 2013. On September 26, 2013 (78 FR 59334), we extended the comment period to November 12, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in The Olympian, the Yakima Herald Republic, The Goldendale Sentinel, The Bulletin, and the Mail Tribune. As also announced in that September 26, 2013, document, we held a public hearing in Lacey, Washington, on October 21, 2013. On September 18, 2013, we held an Oregon spotted frog workshop in Klamath Falls, Oregon, to provide the public with information on the species biology and distribution, and the listing and critical habitat rules. Public meetings were held in Sunriver and La Pine, Oregon, on December 3 and 4, 2013, respectively.
During the public comment period for the proposed rule, we received nearly 80 comment letters addressing the proposed listing for the Oregon spotted frog. During the October 21, 2013, public hearing, five individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed rule. All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from nine knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the Oregon spotted frog and its habitats, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from eight of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the Oregon spotted frog. All peer reviewers felt that the proposed rule was a thorough description of the status of the Oregon spotted frog and commented that they considered the proposed rule well researched and well written. Our requests for peer review are limited to a request for review of the merits of the scientific information in our documents; if peer reviewers have volunteered their personal opinions on matters not directly relevant to the science of our status assessment, we do not respond to those comments here. The peer reviewers provided a number of recommended technical corrections or edits to the proposed listing of the Oregon spotted frog. We evaluated and incorporated this information into this final rule when and where appropriate to clarify this final listing rule. Eight peer reviewers provided substantive comments on the proposed listing of the Oregon spotted frog, which we address below.
There is little indication that categorizing the effects of grazing on Oregon spotted frogs in mesic versus arid environments would produce significantly different results. The purpose and intent of the grazing is what drives the effects of grazing. For example, if grazing is employed alongside other habitat management techniques as a method to maintain open water areas with short vegetation that is suitable for egg-laying where egg-laying habitat is a limiting factor, then some water quality degradation, trampling, and bank breakdown may be acceptable. However, this should not be taken to imply that there are no negative consequences associated with grazing as a habitat management technique. In cases where the primary objective of grazing is cattle production, the methods used may be different than those techniques employed to maintain or enhance Oregon spotted frog habitat. The goals, methods, and impacts to Oregon spotted frogs vary on a site-by-site basis. Our analysis considered both the possible positive and negative impacts of grazing but our final conclusion is that grazing presents a threat within the 10 occupied sub-basins where it currently occurs.
Section 4(i) of the Act states, “the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for [her] failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.” Comments we received from States regarding the proposal to list the Oregon spotted frog are addressed below. We received comments from WDFW, WDNR, WSDOT, WDOE, and Oregon State Department of Transportation related to biological information, threats, and the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. The agencies provided a number of recommendations for technical corrections or edits to the proposed listing of the Oregon spotted frog. We have evaluated and incorporated this information where appropriate to clarify this final rule. In instances where the Service may have disagreed with an interpretation of the technical information that was provided, we have responded to the State directly.
We considered the development of a 4(d) rule that would exempt take of Oregon spotted frogs when that take was incidental to implementing State, regional, or local comprehensive Oregon spotted frog conservation programs. We also considered exempting all activities and efforts conducted by individual landowners on non-Federal lands that are consistent with maintaining or advancing the conservation of Oregon spotted frog, but fall outside of a more structured conservation plan. We further considered exemption from take on lands that are managed following technical guidelines that have been determined by the Service to provide a conservation benefit to the Oregon spotted frog, such as the mowing of reed canarygrass. We requested specific information that would provide us a high level of certainty that such a program would lead to the long-term conservation of Oregon spotted frogs (see Consideration of a 4(d) Special Rule in the August 29, 2013, proposed listing rule).
Although we received several requests for activities to include in a 4(d) rule, except as noted below, we did not receive specific information such as technical guidelines or conservation plans that may have allowed us to determine that a 4(d) rule exempting take for those activities would be necessary and advisable to provide a conservation benefit to the Oregon spotted frog. Some of the activities, such as irrigation, grazing, agricultural diversions, groundwater pumping (hydrologic changes), development, and certain vegetation management methods, for which consideration of a 4(d) rule was requested, are primary threats to the continued existence of the species. We did not receive specific information from requesters that would allow us to determine that a 4(d) rule for these activities would provide a conservation benefit to the Oregon spotted frog; therefore, an exception to the prohibition of take of the species due to these activities is not appropriate. For many of these activities, incidental take is more appropriately addressed through the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or, if a Federal nexus exists, through consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act. Other activities, such as haying and some vegetation management methods (such as mowing of reed canarygrass or installation of barrier cloth), are not anticipated to result in take of the Oregon spotted frog if these activities include appropriate conservation measures and occur when frogs are not known to be present; therefore, consideration of a 4(d) rule exempting incidental take for these activities is not necessary. Additionally, management activities vary greatly across the range of the species, and without specific technical guidelines or conservation plans we are unable to determine the conservation value of these activities to the Oregon spotted frog.
We received technical guidelines pertaining to road maintenance; associated roadside vegetation
We also received a request for a 4(d) rule from the Oregon Department of Transportation based on their “Routine Road Maintenance: Water Quality and Habitat Guide Best Management Practices.” The best management practices (BMPs) found in these guidelines for aquatic species are specific to Pacific salmon and steelhead. Although these BMPs avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic systems to the extent practicable, there are no specific criteria to protect amphibians. For example, the BMPs for beaver dam removal would need to be modified because Oregon spotted frogs can be dependent on beaver activity to create and maintain suitable habitat. We would like to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation to incorporate BMPs that will avoid and minimize impacts to the Oregon spotted frog.
The Deschutes County Roads Department also submitted comments requesting a 4(d) rule for road maintenance and operations, including BMPs for facilities within or near riparian areas. We did not receive specific information on the County's BMPs that would allow us to determine that a 4(d) rule for these activities would provide a conservation benefit to Oregon spotted frog. Therefore, we will continue to work with the Deschutes County Road Department to evaluate these activities and determine the most appropriate tool for coverage under the Act.
We also received a comment from the Deschutes Basin Board of Control requesting a 4(d) rule; we address their comments later, under
Based on the information above, we have not proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the Oregon spotted frog, and the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 will apply. Additionally, the normal take provisions provided by section 17.31(b) of the Act to State conservation agencies operating a conservation program pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act will apply.
We may continue to consider developing a proposed 4(d) rule after this listing is finalized if we were to receive appropriate specific information that would provide us with a high level of certainty that such activities would lead to the long-term conservation of Oregon spotted frogs.
Subsequent to the 1991 document cited by the commenter, the Oregon spotted frog and Columbia spotted frog were separated into two species (see
While specific survey information does not exist for the private lands adjoining Conboy Lake NWR, the habitat for the Oregon spotted frog does not stop at the boundaries of the refuge. Due to the contiguous nature of the known occupied habitat on the refuge with the habitat on the adjoining private lands, the Service considers the adjoining lands occupied.
Within the Little Deschutes River sub-basin, most of these breeding adults are confined to one area, Big Marsh (5,324 out of 6,628), which is not subject to irrigation district activities. We stated that the trend at Big Marsh appears to be increasing; however, there are no trend data available for the remainder of the sub-basin. Therefore, our determination of an undetermined trend for this sub-basin is accurate.
We agree that the Oregon spotted frogs in the Upper Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River sub-basins continue to be present within areas of regulated flow associated with irrigation district activities for more than a century. However, without the irrigation district activities, the Oregon spotted frog populations in these sub-basins may be higher in number and better distributed throughout the sub-basin.
The Service agrees that there is need to protect groundwater resources, as many wetland habitats occupied by Oregon spotted frogs are supported by groundwater. Pumping of groundwater can result in lower water levels in groundwater systems, diminished flow of springs, and reduced streamflow (Gannett
In Washington State, Nordstrom and Milner (1997) remains the current accepted management practices guide. It clearly states, “stormwater runoff from urban developments should not be diverted into spotted frog habitats. Urban runoff often contains heavy metals and other pollutants that may affect frogs.” Therefore, the information regarding controlling stormwater runoff away from frog habitat and the Washington Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations is accurate as presented.
Brand and Snodgrass (2010) concluded anthropogenic wetlands may be important to amphibian conservation in suburban and urban areas, but cautioned about the contaminants in the stormwater ponds. In addition, inferences from this study should be made very judiciously because the amphibian species studied were primarily terrestrial and only used the structures during the breeding season and their “natural” locations dried up before metamorphosis, so the structures were not providing for the essential needs of the associated amphibians and were essentially acting as a breeding sink.
The Service would not recommend that these types of facilities be constructed in or near Oregon spotted frog habitat because of the potential for creating ponds that do not remain wetted and could trap frogs or larvae, retain deeper water that attracts bullfrogs, or expose Oregon spotted frogs to contaminants.
The Act does not allow the Service to refrain from listing a species in an instance such as this, where one species' habitat needs are different or incompatible with those of another listed species. In theory, two species that co-existed in the past should be able to co-exist in the present and future; however, due to human alteration of the naturally functioning ecosystem, human management of the ecosystem upon which these species depend now needs to accommodate the habitat needs of both species. As such, the incompatibilities and means to balance recovery objectives will be addressed in any future recovery plan for the Oregon spotted frog and are not relevant to a listing decision.
As for the commenters' assertion that limitations on the use of private property might effect a regulatory taking, the Act does not allow such considerations to influence a listing decision. In any event, the provisions of section 10 of the Act, allowing landowners to take listed species in accordance with an approved habitat conservation plan, are generally an effective means of resolving such issues without foreclosing all use of property.
Given the storage, release, and diversion of water in the Upper Deschutes River and the Little Deschutes River were identified in our proposed listing rule as sources of Oregon spotted frog habitat loss or
We fully considered comments from the peer reviewers and from the public on the proposed rule to develop this final listing for Oregon spotted frog. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed listing based on the comments that we received that are discussed above. We expanded our discussion of water quality to acknowledge maximum levels as being toxic to amphibians and provided maximum limits set by the EPA for human drinking water. We also expanded our water quality discussion to include information on the effects of low dissolved oxygen and revised our conclusion concerning the extent of threats due to water quality. We added text to the “Hydrological Changes” section in the
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Oregon spotted frog. Past human actions have destroyed, modified, and curtailed the range and habitat available for the Oregon spotted frog, which is now absent from 76 to 90 percent of its former range. The Oregon spotted frog populations within two of the sub-basins are declining, but the population trend in the other 13 sub-basins is undetermined. However, the Oregon spotted frog is extant in only 15 of 31 sub-basins where it historically occurred. In addition, the majority of remaining populations are isolated both between and within sub-basins, with minimal opportunity for natural recolonization. These isolated populations are, therefore, vulnerable to ongoing threats and extirpation, and threats are known to be ongoing or increasing across the range of the Oregon spotted frog, as summarized below.
Habitat necessary to support all life stages is continuing to be impacted and/or destroyed by human activities that result in the loss of wetlands to land conversions; hydrologic changes resulting from operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of beavers; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure resulting from reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, increased water temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting from the timing, intensity, and location of livestock grazing. Oregon spotted frogs in all currently occupied sub-basins in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon are subject to one or more of these threats to their habitat. Eleven of the 15 sub-basins are currently experiencing a high to very high level of habitat impacts, and these impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
Disease continues to be a concern, but our evaluation of the best scientific information available indicates that disease is not currently a threat to Oregon spotted frogs. At least one nonnative predaceous species occurs within each of the sub-basins currently occupied by Oregon spotted frogs. Introduced fish have been documented within each sub-basin; these introduced species prey on tadpoles, negatively affect overwintering habitat, and can significantly threaten Oregon spotted frog populations, especially during droughts. Bullfrogs (and likely green frogs) prey on juvenile and adult Oregon spotted frogs, and bullfrog tadpoles can outcompete or displace Oregon spotted frog tadpoles. In short, nonnative bullfrogs effectively reduce the abundance of all Oregon spotted frog life stages and pose an added threat to a species that has significant negative impacts rangewide from habitat degradation. Nine of the 15 occupied sub-basins are currently experiencing moderate to very high impacts due to predation by introduced species, and these impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
Lack of essential habitat protection under Federal, State, Provincial, and local laws leaves this species at continued risk of habitat loss and degradation in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. In many cases, laws and regulations that pertain to retention and restoration of wetland and riverine areas are a no-management (i.e.,
Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations are small and isolated from other breeding locations. Due to their fidelity to breeding locations and vulnerability to fluctuating water levels, predation, and low overwinter survival, Oregon spotted frogs can experience rapid population turnovers that they may not be able to overcome. Low connectivity among occupied sub-basins and among breeding locations within a sub-basin, in addition to small population sizes, contributes to low genetic diversity within genetic groups and high genetic differentiation among genetic groups. Oregon spotted frogs in every occupied sub-basin are subject to more than one stressor, such as loss or reduced quality of habitat and predation. Therefore, the species may be more susceptible to the synergistic effects of combined threats, which may be exacerbated by climate change. The threat to Oregon spotted frogs from other natural or manmade factors is occurring throughout the entire range of the species, and the population-level impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.
All of the known Oregon spotted frog occupied sub-basins are currently affected by one or more of these threats, which reduce the amount and quality of available breeding, summer, and overwintering habitat. While the risk to an individual site from each of these factors may vary, the cumulative risk of these threats to each site is high. This scenario is reflected in declining and/or small populations, which constitute the majority the Oregon spotted frog's remaining distribution. We find that Oregon spotted frogs are likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. However, the best scientific and commercial information does not indicate at the present time that the existing threats are of such a great magnitude that Oregon spotted frogs are in immediate danger of extinction. Threats are not geographically concentrated in any portions of the species' range, and the species is extant and redundant at a number of localities within 13 of 15 sub-basins within British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. One extant population remains in each of the Lower Deschutes River and Middle Fork Willamette sub-basins in Oregon. Egg mass surveys continue to document reproducing adults in most areas, although in at least two locations within the current range, Oregon spotted frogs may no longer be extant (i.e., the Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove site in British Columbia and the 110th Avenue site at Nisqually NWR in Washington).
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that the Oregon spotted frog is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. The best scientific and commercial information does not indicate at the present time that the existing threats are of such a great magnitude that Oregon spotted frogs are in immediate danger of extinction, but we conclude that it is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we determine that the Oregon spotted frog meets the definition of threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” A major part of the analysis of “significant portion of the range” requires considering whether the threats to the species are geographically concentrated in any way. If the threats are essentially uniform throughout the species' range, then no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
The best available data suggest that, under current conditions, Oregon spotted frogs will likely continue to decline toward extinction. Having already determined that the Oregon spotted frog is a threatened species throughout its range, we considered whether threats may be so concentrated in some portion of its range that, if that portion were lost, the entire species would be in danger of extinction. We reviewed the entire supporting record for the status review of this species with respect to the geographic concentrations of threats, and the significance of portions of the range to the conservation of the species. Oregon spotted frogs currently occupy 15 sub-basins that are widely distributed, such that a catastrophic event in one or more of the sub-basins would not extirpate Oregon spotted frogs throughout their range. Based on our five-factor analysis of threats throughout the range of the Oregon spotted frog, we found that threats to the survival of the species occur throughout the species' range and are not significantly concentrated or substantially greater in any particular portion of their range. Therefore, we find that there is no significant portion of the Oregon spotted frog's range that may warrant a different status. Therefore, the species as a whole is not presently in danger of extinction, and does not meet the definition of an endangered species under the Act.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains listed or may be delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Oregon spotted frog. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Oregon spotted frog. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS, BLM, and Joint Base Lewis McChord; actions funded or carried out by NRCS, USDA Rural Development, USDA Farm Service Agency, and USDA APHIS; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Corps; construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration; construction and maintenance renewable and alternative energy projects and right-of-way corridors under U.S. Department of Energy and Bonneville Power Administration; and activities and infrastructure construction and maintenance associated with water storage and delivery under the purview of Bureau of Reclamation.
Examples of other activities conducted, regulated, or funded by Federal agencies that may affect listed species or their habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Vegetation management such as planting, grazing, burning, mechanical treatment, and/or application of pesticides adjacent to or in Oregon spotted frog habitat;
(2) Water manipulation, such as flow management, water diversions, or canal dredging or piping;
(3) Recreation management actions such as development of campgrounds or boat launches adjacent to or in Oregon spotted frog habitat;
(4) River restoration, including channel reconstruction, placement of large woody debris, vegetation planting, reconnecting riverine floodplain, or gravel placement adjacent to or in Oregon spotted frog habitat;
(5) Pond construction; and
(6) Import, export, or trade of the species.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the Oregon spotted frog, such as bullfrogs, green frogs, or warm or cold water fishes to the States of Washington, Oregon, or California;
(2) Modification of the wetted area or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any body of water in which the Oregon spotted frog is known to occur; and
(3) Discharge of chemicals into any waters in which the Oregon spotted frog is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary has discretion to issue such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.31) for threatened wildlife generally incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act for endangered wildlife, except when a rule promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act has been issued with respect to a particular threatened species. In such a case, the general prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31 would not apply to that species, and instead, the 4(d) rule would define the specific take prohibitions and exceptions that would apply for that particular threatened species, which we consider necessary and advisable to conserve the species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with respect to a threatened species any act prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, which has been delegated to the Service by the Secretary, the Service has developed general prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31 and exceptions to those prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.32.
We have not proposed to promulgate a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the Oregon spotted frog, and as a result, all of the section 9 prohibitions, including the “take” prohibitions, will apply to the Oregon spotted frog.
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occur on Tribally owned lands. However, we provided information on our proposed and final listing rules to Tribal governments in Oregon and Washington where known Oregon spotted frog occurrences overlap with Tribal interests.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office—Bend Field Office, and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes the hunting seasons, hours, areas, and daily bag and possession limits of mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhens and gallinules; woodcock; common snipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early (September) waterfowl seasons; migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; youth waterfowl day; and some extended falconry seasons. Taking of migratory birds is prohibited unless specifically provided for by annual regulations. This rule permits taking of designated species during the 2014–15 season.
This rule is effective on August 29, 2014.
You may inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia. You may obtain copies of referenced reports from the street address above, or from the Division of Migratory Bird Management's Web site at
Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358–1714.
On April 30, 2014, we published in the
On June 4, 2014, we published in the
On July 30–31, 2014, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl and developed recommendations for the 2014–15 regulations for these species. Proposed hunting regulations were discussed for late seasons. We published the proposed frameworks for late-season regulations (primarily hunting seasons that start after October 1 and most waterfowl seasons) in an August 22, 2014,
The final rule described here is the sixth in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhens and gallinules; woodcock; common snipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early (September) waterfowl seasons; migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; youth waterfowl hunting day; and some extended falconry seasons. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the migratory game bird early hunting seasons, which started with the April 30 proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere in this document, we supplemented that proposal on June 4 and July 31, and published final early season frameworks in a late August
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An updated economic analysis was prepared for the 2013–14 season. This analysis was based on data from the newly released 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives were: (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2012–13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012–13 season. For the 2013–14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8–$416.8 million. For the 2014–15 season, we have also chosen alternative 3. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009–10, the 2010–11, the 2011–12, and the 2012–13 seasons. The 2013–14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we are not deferring the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This final rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:
• 1018–0010—Mourning Dove Call Count Survey (discontinued 7/29/2014).
• 1018–0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 4/30/2015).
• 1018–0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–711), does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule allows hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Thus, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the April 30
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The preliminary proposed rulemaking (April 30
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that, when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703–711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703–712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j, Pub. L. 106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
The following annual hunting regulations provided for by §§ 20.101 through 20.106 and 20.109 of 50 CFR part 20 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations because of their seasonal nature.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset.
(a)
(1) Not more than 10 Zenaida and 3 mourning doves in the aggregate.
Restrictions: In Puerto Rico, the season is closed on the ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck,
Closed Areas: Closed areas are described in the July 31, 2014,
(b)
Restrictions: In the Virgin Islands, the seasons are closed for ground or quail doves, pigeons, ruddy duck, white-cheeked pintail, West Indian whistling duck, fulvous whistling duck, masked duck, and purple gallinule.
Closed Areas: Ruth Cay, just south of St. Croix, is closed to the hunting of migratory game birds. All Offshore Cays under jurisdiction of the Virgin Islands Government are closed to the hunting of migratory game birds.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
(1) The basic duck bag limits may include no more than 1 canvasback daily, and may not include sea ducks. In addition to the basic duck limits, sea duck limits of 10 daily, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks, are allowed. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers. The season for Steller's and spectacled eiders is closed.
(2) In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is only permitted from September 28 through December 16. In the Middleton Island portion of Unit 6, the taking of Canada geese is by special permit only. The maximum number of Canada goose permits is 10 for the season. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check in and out. The daily bag and possession limit is 1. The season will close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters. In Unit 6–B, 6–C, and on Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Islands in Unit 6–D, the possession limit is 2 times the daily bag limit.
(3) In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, the daily bag limit is 6 Canada geese.
(4) In Units 9, 10, and 17, the daily bag limit is 6 white-fronted geese.
(5) In Unit 18, the daily bag limit is 8 white-fronted geese.
(6) Light geese include snow geese and Ross' geese.
(7) In Unit 17 of the North Zone, the daily bag limit for sandhill cranes is 2 and the possession limit is 6.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
(a)
(1) In
(2) In
(3) In
(4) In
(5) In
(b)
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
States with deferred seasons will select those seasons at the same time they select waterfowl seasons in August. Consult late-season regulations for further information.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
States with deferred seasons may select those seasons at the same time they select waterfowl seasons in August. Consult late-seasons regulations for further information.
(a)
(b)
Within the special sea duck areas, the daily bag limit is 7 scoter, eider, and long-tailed ducks, singly or in the aggregate, of which no more than 4 may be scoters. Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit. These limits may be in addition to regular duck bag limits only during the regular duck season in the special sea duck hunting areas.
(c)
Unless otherwise specified, the seasons listed below are for teal only.
(d)
(e)
Bag and possession limits will conform to those set for the regular season. Additional season dates occurring after September 30 will be published with the late season selections.
(f)
The following seasons are open only to youth hunters. Youth hunters must be accompanied into the field by an adult at least 18 years of age. This adult cannot duck hunt but may participate in other open seasons.
Youth Hunters: Includes youths 15 years of age or younger.
The Atlantic Flyway: Includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Mississippi Flyway: Includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
The Central Flyway: Includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all Counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except that the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation is in the Pacific Flyway), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).
The Pacific Flyway: Includes Arizona, California, Colorado (west of the Continental Divide), Idaho, Montana (including and to the west of Hill, Chouteau, Cascade, Meagher, and Park Counties), Nevada, New Mexico (the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation and west of the Continental Divide), Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (west of the Continental Divide including the Great Divide Basin).
Bag and possession limits will conform to those set for the regular season unless there is a special season already open (e.g., September Canada goose season), in which case, that season's daily bag limit will prevail.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits on the species designated in this section are as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take sandhill cranes at the level allowed by the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the July 31, 2014,
These limits apply to falconry during both regular hunting seasons and extended falconry seasons — unless further restricted by State regulations. The falconry bag and possession limits are not in addition to regular season limits. Unless otherwise specified, extended falconry for ducks does not include sea ducks within the special sea duck areas. Only extended falconry seasons are shown below. Many States permit falconry during the gun seasons. Please consult State regulations for details.
For ducks, mergansers, coots, geese, and some moorhen seasons; additional season days occurring after September 30 will be published with the late-season selections. Some States have deferred selections. Consult late-season regulations for further information.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule with request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is publishing for public comment a proposed rule amending Regulation C to implement amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) made by section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Consistent with section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau proposes to add several new reporting requirements and to clarify several existing requirements. The Bureau is also proposing changes to institutional and transactional coverage under Regulation C.
Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB–2014–0019 or RIN 3170–AA10, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
David Jacobs, Terry J. Randall, or James Wylie, Counsels; or Elena Grigera Babinecz, Joan Kayagil, Thomas J. Kearney, Amanda Quester, or Laura Stack, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700.
For almost 40 years, HMDA
Specifically, the Bureau is proposing several changes to revise the tests for determining which financial institutions and housing-related credit transactions are covered under HMDA. The Bureau also is proposing to require financial institutions to report new data points identified in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as other data points that the Bureau believes may be necessary to carry out the purposes of HMDA. Further, the Bureau is proposing to better align the requirements of Regulation C to existing industry standards where practicable. To improve the quality and timeliness of HMDA data, the Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions with large numbers of reported transactions to submit their HMDA data on a quarterly, rather than an annual, basis. To minimize costs to HMDA reporters associated with making certain data available to the public, the Bureau is proposing that reporters may direct members of the public to a publicly available Web site to obtain the data. The Bureau is also proposing several changes to clarify and provide additional guidance on existing requirements of Regulation C that financial institutions and other stakeholders have identified as confusing or unclear. The Bureau solicits public comment on all issues involved with this proposal, including each of its specific proposals to amend Regulation C.
The Bureau is proposing modifications to institutional and transactional coverage to better achieve HMDA's purposes in light of current market conditions and to reduce unnecessary burden on financial institutions. The Bureau is proposing to adjust Regulation C's institutional coverage test to simplify the institutional coverage requirements by adopting, for all financial institutions, a uniform loan-volume threshold of 25 loans. Currently, Regulation C contains different coverage criteria for depository institutions (banks, savings associations, and credit unions) and nondepository institutions. Depository institutions that originate one first-lien home purchase loan or refinancing secured by a one-to-four family dwelling and that meet other criteria for a financial institution under Regulation C must collect and report HMDA data, while some nondepository institutions that originate as many as 99 home purchase loans, including refinancings of home purchase loans, annually do not have to collect and report HMDA data.
Under the proposal, depository and nondepository institutions that meet all other criteria for a financial institution under Regulation C would be required to report HMDA data if they originated 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, in the previous calendar year. The Bureau believes that this proposal would improve the quality of HMDA data by increasing visibility into the practices of nondepository institutions. In addition, the Bureau is concerned that the requirement for depository institutions to report even if they originate only one mortgage loan may impose costs not justified by the benefits. The proposal would relieve depository institutions that originate a small number of mortgage loans from
The Bureau is also proposing to generally expand the types of transactions subject to Regulation C, while eliminating the requirement to report unsecured home improvement loans. Currently, Regulation C requires reporting of three types of loans: home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing. Reverse mortgages that are home purchase loans, home improvement loans, or refinancings are reported under Regulation C, but they are not separately identified and many data points do not currently account for the features of reverse mortgages. Home-equity lines of credit may be reported at financial institutions' option, but are not required to be reported. As a result, HMDA data currently contains gaps in data regarding important segments of the housing market.
Under the proposal, financial institutions generally would be required to report all closed-end loans, open-end lines of credit, and reverse mortgages secured by dwellings. Unsecured home improvement loans would no longer be reported. Thus, financial institutions would no longer be required to ascertain an applicant's intended purpose for a dwelling-secured loan to determine if the loan is required to be reported under Regulation C, though they would still itemize dwelling-secured loans by different purpose when reporting. Certain types of loans would continue to be excluded from Regulation C requirements, including loans on unimproved land and temporary financing. Reverse mortgages and open-end lines of credit would be identified as such to allow for differentiation from other loan types. Further, many of the data points would be modified to take account of the characteristics of, and to clarify reporting requirements for, different types of loans. The Bureau believes these proposals will yield more consistent and useful data and better align Regulation C with the current housing finance market.
The Bureau believes that it can make HMDA compliance and data submission easier for HMDA reporters by aligning, to the extent practicable, Regulation C requirements with existing industry standards for collecting and transmitting data on mortgage loans and applications. Therefore, the Bureau is proposing to align many of the HMDA data requirements with the widely-used Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (MISMO) data standards for residential mortgages.
The Bureau is proposing to add new data points to the reporting requirements established in Regulation C, as well as to modify certain existing data points. Some of the new data points are specifically identified by the Dodd-Frank Act. Others are proposed pursuant to the Bureau's discretionary rulemaking authority to carry out the purposes of HMDA by addressing data gaps. The data points that the Bureau is proposing to add or modify can be grouped into four broad categories:
• Information about applicants, borrowers, and the underwriting process, such as age, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, reasons for denial if the application was denied, the application channel, and automated underwriting system results.
• Information about the property securing the loan, such as construction method, property value, lien priority, the number of individual dwelling units in the property, and additional information about manufactured and multifamily housing.
• Information about the features of the loan, such as additional pricing information, loan term, interest rate, introductory rate period, non-amortizing features, and the type of loan.
• Certain unique identifiers, such as a universal loan identifier, property address, loan originator identifier, and a legal entity identifier for the financial institution.
Regulation C requires financial institutions to submit their HMDA data to the appropriate Federal agency by March 1 following the calendar year for which the data are compiled. The Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions that report large volumes of HMDA data to submit their data to the appropriate agency on a quarterly, rather than an annual basis. The Bureau believes that quarterly reporting would allow regulators to use the data to effectuate the purposes of HMDA in a more timely and effective manner, would reduce reporting errors and improve the quality of HMDA data, and may facilitate the earlier release of annual HMDA data to the public.
The Bureau also is proposing to allow HMDA reporters to make their disclosure statements available by referring members of the public that request a disclosure statement to a publicly-available Web site. Currently, a financial institution is required to make its disclosure statement available to the public in its home offices and, in addition, to either make it available in certain branch offices or to post notice of its availability and provide it in response to a written request. The Bureau believes that this proposal will facilitate public access to HMDA data while minimizing burdens to financial institutions.
Financial institutions and other stakeholders have, over time, identified aspects of Regulation C that are unclear or confusing. The Bureau believes that the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments is an opportunity to address many of these longstanding issues through improvements to the regulatory provisions, the instructions in appendix A, and the staff commentary. Examples of these clarifications include guidance on what types of residential structures are considered dwellings; the treatment of manufactured and modular homes and multiple properties; coverage of preapproval programs and temporary financing; how to report a transaction that involved multiple financial institutions; reporting the action taken
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 12 U.S.C. 2801
The Bureau's Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, implements HMDA. Regulation C currently requires depository institutions (
Covered financial institutions are required to report originations and purchases of mortgage loans (home purchase and refinancing) and home improvement loans, as well as loan applications that do not result in originations. The information reported under Regulation C currently includes, among other items: application date; loan or application type, purpose, and amount; property location and type; race, ethnicity, sex, and annual income of the loan applicant; action taken on the loan application (approved, denied, withdrawn, etc.), and date of that action; whether the loan is subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA); lien status (first lien, subordinate lien, or unsecured); and certain loan price information.
Financial institutions report HMDA data to their supervisory agencies on an application-by-application basis using a register format referred to as the loan application register. Institutions must make their loan application registers available to the public, with certain fields redacted to preserve applicants' and borrowers' privacy. At present, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC),
For nearly 40 years, HMDA has provided the public with information about mortgage lending activity within communities throughout the nation. Public officials use the information available through HMDA to develop and allocate housing and community development investments,
By the 1960s, despite improvements in the housing supply throughout the country, there were neighborhoods and areas within many cities where the housing situation continued to deteriorate.
Congressional hearings revealed that many financial institutions were unwilling to provide mortgage loans for the purchase of homes in urban areas.
The unavailability of home improvement financing also was a significant problem. Financial institutions generally were unwilling to provide home improvement loans, which tend to be smaller and less risky than home purchase loans, in urban neighborhoods.
While these market failures were generally acknowledged and understood, Congress was unable to determine the extent and severity of the situation.
As originally enacted and implemented, HMDA applied to depository institutions with over $10,000,000 in assets that made federally related mortgage loans and that were located in standard metropolitan statistical areas.
Deteriorating urban housing conditions and inadequate private investment led Congress to enact other laws as well. These laws included the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which allocated funds to States and units of general local development to address urban conditions,
HMDA created a degree of transparency that immediately improved the public's understanding of the relationship between mortgage lending and community stability. The data enabled community groups to understand the magnitude of disinvestment within minority neighborhoods.
Beginning in the early 1980s, Congress made a number of significant changes to HMDA to expand the types of institutions covered, the data collected, and public access to such data. In 1980, Congress amended HMDA to require the newly established FFIEC to prepare and publish aggregate data tables for each standard MSA.
While HMDA was successful in helping the public understand mortgage lending discrimination between neighborhoods, events in the late 1980s shifted public attention to discrimination between individual applicants and borrowers. Community groups had argued that individuals within a particular neighborhood were experiencing discrimination during the mortgage lending process. These groups lacked sufficient evidence to prove the extent and severity of the problem, until a series of investigative reports supported their arguments by demonstrating significant racial disparities in mortgage lending between several neighborhoods in both Atlanta and Detroit.
These revelations coincided with the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, during which many depository institutions throughout the country failed.
One year later, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) fundamentally changed HMDA in several other ways.
This shift from aggregate to transaction-level reporting, and from limited to more detailed loan data, substantially increased the usefulness of the HMDA data. Studies conducted using the expanded HMDA data confirmed that, in many cases, an applicant's race alone influenced whether the applicant was denied credit.
HMDA data, coupled with amendments to the CRA, helped communities engage with financial institutions to address issues stemming from deregulation. Community groups used HMDA data to challenge proposed bank mergers, and many depository institutions developed lending programs dedicated to addressing the needs of their communities.
The Board responded by amending Regulation C to provide greater visibility into the subprime market. The Board initiated its last comprehensive review of Regulation C through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 1998
• Required financial institutions to report pricing information for higher-priced mortgage loans;
• Required financial institutions to identify loans subject to HOEPA;
• Required financial institutions to report denials of applications received through certain preapproval programs and permitted financial institutions to report requests for preapproval that were approved but not accepted;
• Expanded the coverage of nondepository financial institutions by adding a loan origination dollar-volume threshold of $25 million to the loan-percentage test;
• Required financial institutions to report whether a loan involves a manufactured home; and
• Required financial institutions to ask applicants their ethnicity, race, and sex in applications taken by telephone and conform the collection of data on ethnicity and race to standards established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 1997.
The 2002 revisions to Regulation C focused on the data elements that are required rather than the institutions or transactions that are covered. In adopting the revisions, the Board considered changes that had occurred in the home mortgage market, including the growth of subprime lending. The revisions improved the usefulness of the HMDA data, especially with respect to fair lending concerns, but adding a limited number of loan pricing variables only modestly addressed the need for increased transparency in the subprime mortgage market.
However, discrimination was only one of the problems caused by the predatory practices employed by certain subprime lenders. Evidence demonstrated that predatory subprime lending in the late 1990s resulted in high rates of delinquency and foreclosure, threatening the stability of many communities.
Communities throughout the nation were devastated when the housing and financial markets collapsed in 2007. The financial crisis resulted in the loss of nearly $7 trillion in household wealth, and an unprecedented number of homeowners faced foreclosure.
Communities and public officials used HMDA data, including the data on subprime lending, to identify at-risk neighborhoods and to develop foreclosure relief and homeownership stabilization programs.
At the same time, Congress began preparing a legislative response to the financial crisis.
While the Dodd-Frank Act added new reporting requirements that will increase the level of transparency in the mortgage market, many argue that more publicly available information is needed to help inform communities of lending practices that affect local economies and may endanger neighborhood stability.
As discussed above, Congress made major amendments to HMDA in the Dodd-Frank Act, including specifying new data points for collection and providing the Bureau with broad authority to, among other things, require the collection of other data points and change the format and submission requirements for HMDA reporting. The collection and reporting of improved loan-level mortgage data has drawn strong interest from both market participants and regulators in the wake of the financial crisis. In light of its authorities, the Bureau has investigated potential uses of and alignments with industry data standards as a means to improve the quality of HMDA data that is collected and reported, and to reduce the processing and compliance costs on financial institutions.
Federal policy strongly favors agency use of voluntary consensus standards, and reliance on appropriate existing standards would allow the Bureau to draw on the expertise and resources of other data standards developers to serve the public interest.
Currently, HMDA data are submitted in the loan application register format, consistent with the instructions in appendix A to Regulation C.
Financial institutions maintain records of mortgage loan applications and originations in many forms and in many systems outside of those used for HMDA reporting. In many cases, these systems use or define data points in ways that differ from Regulation C requirements. As a result, those systems are not directly compatible with the HMDA loan application register format, so that financial institutions have to use additional software and modify data in existing systems in order to submit HMDA data in the proper format.
The Bureau believes that the burden associated with Regulation C compliance and data submission can be reduced by aligning the requirements of Regulation C to the extent practicable with existing industry standards for collecting and transmitting data on mortgage loans and applications. The Bureau believes that promoting consistent data standards for both industry and regulatory use has benefits for market efficiency, market understanding, market oversight, and improved data quality.
MISMO, a wholly owned non-profit subsidiary of the Mortgage Bankers Association, has developed an extensive set of data standards for electronic delivery of loan-level mortgage data.
When the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) assumed oversight of the GSEs, it mandated that they align to the MISMO data standard. The FHFA directed the GSEs to develop a Uniform Mortgage Data Program (UMDP) to enhance the accuracy and quality of mortgage loan data delivery to each GSE.
The Bureau recognizes that not every mortgage industry member would support alignment of the HMDA data requirements with MISMO/ULDD data standards—particularly small financial institutions that do not sell loans to the GSEs or that conduct only portfolio lending. Financial institutions that do not currently use the MISMO/ULDD data standards may have reservations about the alignment of the HMDA data requirements with such industry standards. However, the Bureau believes that the efficiencies achieved by aligning HMDA data with widely used industry data standards justify potential burdens and that the efficiencies will grow over time. Aligning with MISMO/ULDD data standards means relying on uniform data standards that are already familiar to financial institutions and data vendors. A HMDA reporter or data vendor using MISMO for business purposes would be able to use the same standard for its HMDA submission, thereby reducing the resources required to translate data into a different standard, such as the particular government standards currently used only for purposes of HMDA compliance. In addition, the Bureau believes that grounding HMDA in the common vocabulary and data standards of the industry will continue to reduce burdens should the need arise to modify Regulation C in the future. Alignment with MISMO/ULDD is also consistent with the policies discussed above that encourage use of voluntary consensus standards by Federal agencies.
As discussed above, HMDA's purposes are to provide the public and public officials with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether institutions are serving the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located, to assist public officials in distributing public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment, and to assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes. Today, HMDA data are the preeminent data source for regulators, researchers, economists, industry, and advocates
Financial institutions collect various types of information from consumers in the course of processing loan applications. To promote HMDA's goals, HMDA and Regulation C require financial institutions to compile and report to the Bureau and other agencies some of this information and other information obtained or generated concerning the application or loan. As discussed above, the Dodd-Frank Act both expanded the scope of information that financial institutions must compile and report and authorized the Bureau to require financial institutions to compile and report additional data. The Bureau has considered applicant and borrower privacy in developing its proposal to implement the Dodd-Frank amendments and otherwise amend Regulation C. The Bureau's proposals are intended to ensure that data compiled and reported by financial institutions fulfill HMDA's purposes while appropriately protecting applicant and borrower privacy.
During the Small Business Review Panel process,
The Bureau also has received feedback from industry expressing concern about the security of the data to be reported under this proposal during its submission. As part of its efforts to improve and modernize HMDA operations, the Bureau is considering various improvements to the HMDA data submission process, including further advancing encryption if necessary to protect the security of HMDA data to be reported under this proposal.
As discussed above, HMDA is a disclosure statute. To fulfill HMDA's purposes, the types of data a financial institution is required to compile and report under HMDA and Regulation C have been expanded since the statute's enactment in 1975, and the formats in which HMDA data have been disclosed to the public also have evolved. At present, HMDA and Regulation C require data to be made available to the public in both aggregate and loan-level formats. First, each financial institution must make its “modified” loan application register available to the public, with three fields deleted to protect applicant and borrower privacy.
The Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA added new section 304(h)(1)(E), which directs the Bureau to develop regulations, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, that “modify or
The Bureau interprets HMDA, as amended by these provisions, to call for the use of a balancing test to determine whether and how HMDA data should be modified prior to its public release in order to protect applicant and borrower privacy while also fulfilling the public disclosure purposes of the statute.
Using the balancing test to evaluate particular HMDA data points, individually and in combination, and various options for providing access to HMDA data, the Bureau will balance the importance of releasing the data to accomplish HMDA's public disclosure purposes against the potential harm to an applicant or borrower's privacy interest that may result from the release of the data without modification. Modifications the Bureau may consider where warranted include various disclosure limitation techniques, such as techniques aimed at masking the precise value of data points,
The Bureau believes that its interpretation of HMDA to call for the use of the balancing test described herein best effectuates the purposes of the statute. HMDA's purposes are to provide the public and public officials with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether institutions are serving the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located, to assist public officials in distributing public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment, and to assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes. The Bureau believes that access to loan-level HMDA data, in particular, enhances the use of HMDA data by members of the public and public officials and thus best effectuates HMDA's purposes.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives expressed concerns about the privacy implications of certain current and proposed HMDA data.
In 2010, when the Board had rulemaking authority over HMDA, the Board conducted a series of public hearings that elicited feedback on improvements to Regulation C. After the rulemaking authority for HMDA was transferred to the Bureau, the Bureau conducted outreach on implementing the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA and other potential changes to Regulation C by soliciting comments in
In 2010, the Board convened public hearings on potential revisions to Regulation C (the Board's 2010 Hearings).
The Board identified institutional coverage as one of the topics for discussion at the hearings. Participants addressed whether the Board should require reporting from additional types of institutions, whether certain types of institutions should be exempt from reporting, and whether any other changes should be made to the rules for determining which types of institutions must report data. For example, representatives from Federal agencies, lenders, and consumer advocates urged the Board to adopt a consistent minimum loan threshold across all types of institutions, including banks, savings associations, credit unions, and nondepository institutions.
The Board solicited feedback on ways to improve the quality and usefulness of HMDA data, including whether any data elements should be added, modified, or deleted. Participants provided suggestions about ways to improve the utility of HMDA data. Participants discussed modifications to the data fields currently collected in Regulation C that may clarify reporting requirements and improve the usefulness of HMDA data. For example, participants urged the Board to augment the information collected concerning multifamily properties
In addition, participants commented on data fields that could be added to the data collected under HMDA to improve its utility. For example, participants suggested collecting information regarding points and fees, including prepayment penalties,
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Bureau and, on July 21, 2011, transferred rulemaking authority under HMDA from the Board to the Bureau. As discussed below, the Dodd-Frank Act also amended HMDA to add additional data points and make other statutory changes. However, pursuant to section 1094(3)(F) of the Dodd-Frank Act, financial institutions are not required to report new data under paragraphs (5) or (6) of HMDA subsection (b) until after the Bureau publishes final regulations with respect to such disclosures.
On May 31, 2011, the Bureau published a notice for public comment providing a preliminary list of rules that would be enforced by the Bureau upon the designated transfer date.
Since the Bureau's inception and its assumption of authority over Federal consumer financial laws, it has tried to be responsive to those early comments regarding regulatory burden, differences in regulated entities, and outreach to stakeholders in its rulemaking process. Building on the feedback received during the Board's 2010 Hearings, the Bureau has conducted outreach and obtained significant feedback on the Dodd-Frank amendments and other potential changes to Regulation C through
On December 5, 2011, the Bureau published a request for information in the
The Bureau received comments regarding its specific solicitation for feedback, as well as general suggestions for streamlining Regulation C. Comments were received from consumer advocates, fair housing advocates, financial institutions, State bank supervisory organizations, State industry trade associations, and national industry trade associations. Comments from consumer and fair housing advocates generally focused on adding additional data and types of covered loans, and generally opposed any exemptions or reporting thresholds for Regulation C on the basis that the data are critical for fair lending enforcement and determining if community housing needs are being met. Other comments focused on various potential streamlining changes to Regulation C including establishing loan-volume or asset reporting thresholds, exempting some types of loans from coverage or adding others, making definitions consistent with other regulations, tiered reporting requirements, consolidating guidance sources, and clarifying certain definitions and reporting issues.
On December 19, 2011 the Bureau published an interim final rule establishing Regulation C in 12 CFR part 1003, implementing the assumption of HMDA authority from the Board (the Bureau's 2011 Regulation C Restatement).
In an effort to better understand existing and emerging industry data standards and whether Regulation C could be aligned with them, the Bureau met with staff from MISMO regarding the MISMO residential reference model dataset and staff from the GSEs regarding ULDD. In an effort to better understand financial institutions' internal HMDA compliance processes and compliance costs, the Bureau, through arrangements with a national industry trade association, met with community banks to obtain feedback. The Bureau also met with consumer and fair housing advocates and industry trade associations to understand their concerns with current HMDA data, current Regulation C, and possible changes to Regulation C.
In February 2014, the Bureau convened a Small Business Review Panel (Panel) with the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Prior to formally convening, the Panel participated in teleconferences with small groups of the small entity representatives to introduce to the materials and to obtain feedback. The
The Bureau is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. Section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies, including the Board.
HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
A number of HMDA provisions specify that covered institutions must compile and make their HMDA data publicly available “in accordance with regulations of the Bureau” and “in such formats as the Bureau may require.”
HMDA section 304(e) directs the Bureau to prescribe a standard format for HMDA disclosures required under HMDA section 304.
(A) prescribe the format for such disclosures, the method for submission of the data to the appropriate agency, and the procedures for disclosing the information to the public;
(B) require the collection of data required to be disclosed under [HMDA section 304(b)] with respect to loans sold by each institution reporting under this title;
(C) require disclosure of the class of the purchaser of such loans;
(D) permit any reporting institution to submit in writing to the Bureau or to the appropriate agency such additional data or explanations as it deems relevant to the decision to originate or purchase mortgage loans; and
(E) modify or require modification of itemized information, for the purpose of protecting the privacy interests of the mortgage applicants or mortgagors, that is or will be available to the public.
As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, HMDA section 304 requires itemization of specified categories of information and “such other information as the Bureau may require.”
The Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA also authorize the Bureau's
In preparing this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Bureau has considered the proposed changes below in light of its legal authority under HMDA and the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau has determined that each of the changes proposed below is consistent with the purposes of HMDA and is authorized by one or more of the sources of statutory authority identified in this part.
As discussed further in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.2(d), 2(g), and 2(o) the Bureau proposes substantive modifications to Regulation C's transactional and institutional coverage. The Bureau proposes technical changes to § 1003.1(c) to conform to those substantive changes.
As discussed in detail below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.2(g), the Bureau proposes to adjust Regulation C's institutional coverage to adopt a uniform loan volume threshold of 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, applicable to all financial institutions (25-loan volume test). Under the proposal, depository and nondepository institutions that meet all of the other applicable criteria for a “financial institution” would be required to report HMDA data if they originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, in the previous calendar year. The Bureau believes that this proposal would improve the quality of HMDA data by increasing visibility into the practices of nondepository institutions. In addition, the proposal would appropriately relieve institutions that originate a small number of mortgage loans from the burden of reporting HMDA data without impacting the quality of HMDA data. Furthermore, the proposed 25-loan volume test would simplify the reporting regime by providing a consistent loan volume benchmark across all financial institutions.
As discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to expand the types of transactions for which covered financial institutions must report data under Regulation C by including all mortgage loans, reverse mortgages, and lines of credit secured by a dwelling within the transactional scope of the regulation. Regulation C currently determines transactional coverage according to the purpose of the loan; if a covered financial institution receives an application or originates or purchases a loan that is, among other things, for the purchase of a home, home improvement, or refinancing, the financial institution must collect and report data on the application or loan. As discussed below in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(d), the Bureau is proposing to expand transactional coverage to include all mortgage loans secured by a dwelling, regardless of the purpose of the loan. This proposed modification includes several types of transactions that are not currently covered by Regulation C, including home-equity loans and commercial loans that are secured by a dwelling but do not satisfy the current purpose-based transactional coverage test. In addition, as discussed below in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(o), the Bureau is proposing to expand transactional coverage to include all dwelling-secured lines of credit, regardless of the purpose of the line of credit. This proposed modification includes all home-equity lines of credit, which are currently reported at the option of a financial institution if the purpose-based test is satisfied, as well as commercial lines of credit secured by a dwelling. Finally, as discussed below in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(q), the Bureau is proposing to expand transactional coverage to include all reverse mortgages secured by a dwelling, regardless of the purpose of the reverse mortgage. This proposed modification includes all reverse mortgages, many of which do not satisfy the current purpose-based transactional coverage test, and therefore are not currently reported under Regulation C. The Bureau believes that these modifications would simplify the regulation, improve the quality and usefulness of the HMDA data, and align with current business practices, among other things. See the section-by-section analysis to these sections below for a detailed discussion of these proposed modifications.
In addition, to reduce burden created by redundancy in Regulation C, the Bureau proposes a modest reorganization of Regulation C. For the reasons discussed in the section-by-section analysis below, the Bureau proposes to move and consolidate comments 1(c)–2 through 1(c)–9.
Section 1003.2 of Regulation C sets forth definitions that are used in the regulation. As discussed below, the Bureau proposes substantive changes to several of these current definitions. In addition to these proposed substantive changes, the Bureau proposes technical revisions to § 1003.2 to enumerate the terms defined therein. The Bureau believes that these proposed technical revisions will facilitate compliance with Regulation C by making defined terms easier to locate and cross-reference in the regulation and its commentary and appendices. The Bureau includes in this proposal enumerations only for those definitions that it proposes to add or revise. The Bureau intends to provide enumerations for all definitions in § 1003.2, including the defined terms not addressed in this proposal, when the Bureau finalizes this proposal.
Section 303(4) of HMDA defines a completed application as an application in which the creditor has received the information that is regularly obtained in evaluating applications for the amount and type of credit requested. Regulation C defines an application as an oral or written request for a home purchase loan, a home improvement loan, or a refinancing that is made in accordance with procedures used by a financial institution for the type of credit requested.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.2(e) the Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions to report activity only for dwelling-secured loans, regardless of whether the loans are for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. The Bureau is proposing to make technical corrections and minor wording changes to conform the definition of application to the proposed changes in transactional coverage.
The Bureau is not proposing other changes to the definition of application at this time. When the Bureau's 2011
Regulation C incorporates certain requests under preapproval programs into the definition of application under § 1003.2. Requests for preapprovals may provide more complete data on the availability of home financing and be useful as a fair lending screening device.
The Bureau is proposing to make minor wording changes to the definition of a preapproval program under § 1003.2(b)(2) and technical and clarifying changes to comment Application-3. The Bureau is proposing to delete language in the definition related to a certification of a clear termite inspection because it duplicates language in the commentary. The proposal adds language adapted from the FFIEC FAQs to the comment Application-3. This language specifies that a program that meets the definition in § 1003.2(b)(2) is a preapproval program for purposes of Regulation C regardless of its name, and that a program described as a “preapproval program” that does not meet the definition in § 1003.2(b)(2) is not a preapproval program for purposes of Regulation C. The language also specifies that an institution need not treat
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed concern about reporting preapprovals and determining whether certain requests are reportable as preapprovals. The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau specifically solicit public comment on whether clarification on the coverage of preapprovals is needed and, if so, how the coverage of preapprovals should be determined in light of HMDA's purposes.
Section 1003.2 currently provides a definition of branch office, which includes separate definitions for branches of (1) banks, savings associations, and credit unions and (2) for-profit mortgage-lending institutions (other than banks, savings associations, and credit unions). The Bureau proposes technical and nonsubstantive modifications to the definition of branch office and to comments Branch Office-2 and -3, renumbered as comments 2(c)-2 and -3, respectively, to clarify the definition and to conform to technical changes that the Bureau is proposing throughout Regulation C. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed modifications are appropriate generally.
HMDA section 303(2) defines a “mortgage loan” as a loan which is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. The Board interpreted HMDA section 303(2) to refer to three types of loans: Home purchase loans, home improvement loans, and refinancings. As a result, Regulation C currently does not apply to mortgage loans that do not fall under one of these definitions, such as a loan secured by a dwelling that is used for business expenses, but is not considered a refinancing under § 1003.2. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing a new definition for “closed-end mortgage loans,” which would include all dwelling-secured loans that are not currently covered by Regulation C, regardless of the purpose of the loan.
In the original implementation of Regulation C, the Board's proposed scope included all loans secured by real property.
For these reasons, the Bureau believes that including dwelling-secured loans that are not currently covered by Regulation C may provide valuable information to the public and to public officials. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(d), which defines a “closed-end mortgage loan” as a debt obligation secured by a lien on a dwelling that is not an open-end line of credit under § 1003.2(o), a reverse mortgage under § 1003.2(q), or excluded from coverage pursuant to § 1003.3(c). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate. The Bureau also seeks additional information to ensure that this modification would provide useful data to the public. Specifically, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification would be as valuable to the public as the Bureau's preliminary analysis suggests, whether there would be unique costs or burdens associated with this proposed modification, and whether there are additional considerations that should be included in the Bureau's analysis. Furthermore, the Bureau is not proposing commentary to proposed § 1003.2(d) because the Bureau believes that this proposed definition is straightforward and clear. However, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether commentary is needed to clarify the definition or to facilitate compliance.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives expressed concerns about requiring reporting of dwelling-secured commercial credit.
While HMDA section 303(2) defines a “mortgage loan” as a loan which is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan, Regulation C does not currently contain a defined term that includes all mortgage loans within the scope of the regulation. The Bureau has received feedback indicating that many members of industry find the regulation confusing and experience compliance challenges when determining whether and how to report the data. The Bureau believes that some of this confusion results from the current structure of the regulation, which links certain requirements to loan types, such as home-equity lines of credit, and other requirements to loan purposes, such as refinancings. Establishing clearly delineated boundaries between loan types and loan purposes will help clarify the regulation, and a new defined term that includes all types of loans subject to Regulation C should make subsequent references in the regulation easier to understand.
Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(e), which defines a “covered loan” as a transaction that is, as applicable, a closed-end mortgage loan under § 1003.2(d), an open-end line of credit under § 1003.2(o), or a reverse mortgage under § 1003.2(q). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this new proposed definition is appropriate. The Bureau is not proposing commentary to proposed § 1003.2(e) because the Bureau believes that this proposed definition is straightforward and clear. However, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether commentary is needed to clarify this proposed definition or to facilitate compliance.
Although HMDA does not use or define the term “dwelling,” the term has been included in some form in Regulation C since 1976
Financial institutions have reported that they experience compliance burden in determining whether certain properties are dwellings under Regulation C, and whether the loan or application associated with such properties should be reported on the loan application register. Financial institutions report difficulty in determining coverage for loans secured by homes that are converted to commercial purposes, such as homes converted to daycare centers or professional offices; recreational vehicles that are used as residences; park model recreational vehicles; houseboats and floating homes; and certain mobile homes that do not meet the definition of a manufactured home.
The Bureau is proposing to revise the definition of dwelling in § 1003.2 to provide additional clarity. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to move the geographic location requirement currently in the definition of dwelling to § 1003.1(c) and to add examples of dwellings to the commentary. The proposed examples have long been understood to be dwellings under Regulation C, and the revision is intended solely for clarity and illustration. The proposal revises comment Dwelling-1 to refer to investment properties rather than rental properties for consistency with terms used in the proposal regarding reporting of owner-occupancy status under § 1003.4(a)(6). The proposal also revises comment Dwelling-1 to list condominium and cooperative buildings as additional examples of multifamily residential structures, and to provide that both multifamily complexes and individual buildings are covered. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether additional guidance is necessary to distinguish when multiple multifamily buildings should be considered part of the same complex and multifamily dwelling or when they should be considered separate properties and how to distinguish these scenarios.
The proposed definition in § 1003.2 would no longer refer to mobile homes, to reduce any confusion with the current definition of manufactured home. The HUD standards for manufactured homes do not cover mobile homes constructed before June 15, 1976, and these would not be covered by the proposed definitions of manufactured home or dwelling for purposes of Regulation C.
The proposal clarifies that recreational vehicles are not considered dwellings under Regulation C even if they are used as residences. The current commentary provides that recreational vehicles such as campers and boats are not dwellings for purposes of Regulation C. However, financial institutions have reported confusion with the comment where the recreational vehicle is used as a residence. For example, in some cases borrowers use campers or boats that were not designed as permanent dwellings as residences. Financial institutions have also reported confusion about park model recreational vehicles, which are recreational vehicles which share some characteristics of manufactured homes but are excluded from the HUD standards for manufactured housing as recreational vehicles.
Regarding houseboats and floating homes that may be used as residences, certain financial institutions in areas where houseboats and floating homes are more common report loans related to floating homes and houseboats on their loan application registers. These institutions may receive consideration under the CRA for financing houseboats or floating homes. The Bureau recognizes that while these loans may provide housing for certain communities, the Bureau believes that financing of such loans is different from other home loans and the incidence of such housing is highly localized. Unlike manufactured housing, discussed below, usage and financing of houseboats and floating homes is not as prevalent, and the small number of houseboats used as residences suggests that loans secured by such properties should not be included in HMDA data.
The proposal would differ from Regulation Z's definition of dwelling, which treats recreational vehicles used as residences as dwellings. 12 CFR part 1026, comment 2(a)(19)–2. When the Bureau's 2011 Regulation C Restatement was published, industry trade associations asked the Bureau to align key definitions among various regulations, including the definition of dwelling. As discussed above, the proposal does not align the Regulation C definition with Regulation Z. Instead, it would exclude certain structures which may be covered by Regulation Z and provide more clarity on certain structures. The Bureau believes that additional guidance in this area and an exclusion for certain structures will reduce burden for financial institutions. However, the Bureau solicits feedback on whether financial institutions would prefer to report loans and applications for these types of structures that may be
The proposal revises the sentence in the comment Dwelling-2 regarding transitory residences to delete the reference to principal residences elsewhere because the explanation is inconsistent with the standard articulated in the commentary regarding non-principal residences such as second homes. The Bureau believes that this exclusion is better explained by the transitory nature of such structures. The proposal provides that structures designed for residential purposes but used exclusively for commercial purposes would not be dwellings under Regulation C and provides examples of daycare facilities and professional offices. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether the proposed revisions provide institutions with sufficient clarity to identify transactions that must be reported and whether any additional exclusions or examples would be appropriate.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, one small entity representative requested guidance on how to account for mixed-used buildings.
Proposed section§ 1003.2(f) is proposed to implement, in part, the definition of “mortgage loan” in HMDA section 303(2). That term would be implemented through other terms in Regulation C as well, including the proposed definitions of “closed-end mortgage loan” and “covered loan.” In combination with other relevant provisions in Regulation C, the Bureau believes that the proposed definition of “dwelling” is a reasonable interpretation of the definition in that provision. Section 1003.2(f) is also proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 305(a) of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau believes that this proposed definition is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. The proposed definition will serve HMDA's purpose of providing information to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities by providing information about various types of housing that are financed by financial institutions. The definition will facilitate compliance with HMDA requirements by providing clarity regarding what transactions must be reported for purposes of Regulation C.
Regulation C requires institutions that meet the definition of financial institution to collect and report HMDA data. HMDA and Regulation C establish different coverage criteria for depository institutions (banks, savings associations, and credit unions) than for nondepository institutions (for profit-mortgage-lending institutions).
The Bureau proposes to adjust Regulation C's institutional coverage to adopt a uniform loan volume threshold of 25 loans applicable to all financial institutions (25-loan volume test). Under the proposal, depository and nondepository institutions that meet all of the other criteria for a “financial institution” would be required to report HMDA data if they originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, in the preceding calendar year.
The proposed loan volume test would improve the availability of data concerning the practices of nondepository institutions, where information is needed. The Bureau estimates that the proposed coverage criteria may increase the number of nondepository institutions covered by HMDA by as much as 40 percent and the number of reported originations and applications by nondepository institutions by as much as 6 percent. As discussed below, this information is important because Congress and other stakeholders have raised concerns about the practices of, and loan products offered by, nondepository institutions generally and their role in the broader financial crisis. With data from additional nondepository institutions, the public and public officials would be better able to evaluate whether those institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and whether those institutions' practices pose possible fair lending risks. In addition, the data would allow the public and public officials to identify emerging products and practices in the nondepository mortgage market that may pose risks to consumers.
Furthermore, the Bureau believes that the proposed 25-loan volume test may appropriately reduce the burdens on depository institutions that make very few loans while maintaining coverage of a relevant, diverse set of reporting institutions and reported transactions. The Bureau believes that eliminating reporting by lower-volume depository institutions may be a way to reduce burden without impacting the quality of HMDA data. As discussed below, the Bureau believes that the loss of data from depository institutions that originate fewer than 25 loans in a calendar year would not significantly impact the utility of HMDA data for analyzing mortgage lending at the national, local, and institutional levels.
In addition, the proposed 25-loan volume test may simplify the reporting regime by providing a consistent loan volume benchmark across all financial institutions. Institutions that originate 25 loans likely face similar burdens associated with HMDA reporting,
HMDA extends reporting responsibilities to certain nondepository institutions, defined as any person engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending other than a bank, savings association, or credit union.
Under the current definition of financial institution in § 1003.2, a nondepository institution is a financial institution if it meets three criteria. First, the institution satisfies the following loan volume or amount test: In the preceding calendar year, the institution originated home purchase loans, including refinancings of home purchase loans, that equaled either at least 10 percent of its loan-origination volume, measured in dollars, or at least $25 million.
As discussed below, the Bureau proposes to modify the coverage criteria applicable to nondepository institutions by replacing the current loan volume or amount test with the same 25-loan volume test that the Bureau proposes for depository institutions. Under this approach, a nondepository institution would be required to report HMDA data if it had a home or branch office in an MSA on the preceding December 31 and it originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, in the preceding calendar year. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to adopt a different formulation for determining whether a nondepository institution is “engaged for profit in the business of mortgage lending” than the formulation adopted by the Board and to eliminate the asset-size and loan volume exemption for nondepository institutions pursuant to its discretionary authority under HMDA section 309(a).
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, Congress and other stakeholders expressed concerns about the lending practices of nondepository institutions generally and called for greater oversight of those institutions.
Because of this history, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to increase transparency into mortgage lending by nondepository institutions. Currently, there are fewer publicly available data about nondepository institutions than about depository institutions. The differing institutional coverage criteria currently in Regulation C result in HMDA data including more information about lower-volume depository institutions, which may be required to report even if they originated only one mortgage loan in the preceding calendar year, than about lower-volume nondepository institutions, which may not be required to report unless they originated 100 applicable loans in the preceding calendar year and met other loan amount thresholds.
As a result, the public and public officials face challenges analyzing whether lower-volume nondepository institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. The lack of data from lower-volume nondepository institutions may also hinder the ability of the public and public officials to understand access to and sources of credit in particular communities. For example, HMDA data users cannot as easily identify a higher concentration of risky loan products in a given community. In addition, with the current HMDA data, the public and public officials cannot readily understand whether a lower-volume nondepository institution's practices pose potential fair lending risks. The lack of data from lower volume nondepository institutions may also make it more difficult for the public and public officials to identify trends in the nondepository mortgage market that pose potential risks, such as the emergence of new loan products or underwriting practices. Requiring additional nondepository institutions to report HMDA data may help resolve many of these problems and may provide greater visibility into the nondepository mortgage market sector.
In addition, the proposed change in coverage may support the Bureau's supervision of nondepository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act granted Federal supervisory authority to the Bureau over certain nondepository institutions.
As discussed below under the coverage criteria for depository institutions, the Bureau believes that it may not be appropriate to require institutions that originate fewer than 25 covered loans annually, excluding open-end lines of credit, to report HMDA data. The Bureau believes that the costs to institutions that originate fewer than 25 covered loans may not be justified by the benefit from the data collected from those institutions.
Replacing the current loan volume or amount test for nondepository institutions with the proposed 25-loan volume test may also simplify the nondepository coverage criteria. The Bureau has received feedback that the current loan volume or amount test, which is in part based on the percentage of an institution's total loan origination volume in dollars, is difficult both for institutions and public officials to calculate because many institutions do not otherwise measure or report their overall loan origination volume.
By requiring data from a broader range of nondepository institutions, the Bureau believes that this proposed provision would ensure that the public and public officials are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations to serve the housing needs of communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. Furthermore, these data would assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment. In addition, because nondepository institutions pose different fair lending risks than depository institutions, the proposed changes would ensure that the public and public officials are provided with sufficient information to identify potential fair lending concerns.
HMDA extends reporting responsibilities to depository institutions that satisfy certain location, asset-threshold, and federally related requirements.
As part of this rulemaking, the Bureau is seeking ways to reduce burden without impairing the quality of HMDA data. Participants in the Board's 2010 Hearings urged the Board to eliminate reporting by lower-volume depository institutions.
Eliminating reporting by depository institutions that originate fewer than 25 loans annually also is consistent with the Bureau's proposal discussed below to require electronic reporting by all institutions. Currently, only institutions that report 25 or fewer entries annually are permitted to submit the loan application register in paper form.
For the reasons discussed above, the Bureau proposes that § 1003.2(g)(1), the proposed definition of depository financial institution, include a new criterion: in the preceding calendar year, the institution originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit. The Bureau is also proposing technical changes to paragraph one of the definition of financial institution included in § 1003.2. The Bureau solicits comment on the proposed 25-loan volume test, including (1) the extent to which it may exclude valuable data, (2) whether it would prevent public officials and the public from understanding if the institutions excluded by the proposed 25-loan volume test are serving the needs of their communities, and (3) whether it would prevent public officials and the public from identifying geographic areas that may benefit from private and public sector investment. The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the proposed 25-loan volume test may exclude data that are valuable for identifying possible fair lending issues.
The Bureau also solicits comment on whether the loan-volume test for depository financial institutions excludes important data about particular types of transactions, such as multifamily loans. As discussed more fully below in part VI, the applications and originations reported in 2012 by depository institutions that originated 25 or fewer covered loans have different characteristics than overall HMDA data. For example, applications and originations reported by lower-volume depository institutions were more likely to have higher interest rates, lower loan amounts, relate to manufactured housing or to multifamily properties, and to be portfolio loans than those reported by depository institutions that originated more than 25 covered loans. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether it has appropriately calibrated the proposed loan-volume test for depository financial institutions in terms of the number of loans included. There may be advantages to setting the volume test at higher or lower levels in terms of the quality and quantity of the data collected.
The Bureau proposes § 1003.2(g)(1), the proposed definition of depository financial institution, pursuant to its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA to provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions that the Bureau judges are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, for the reasons given above, the Bureau believes that this proposed exception is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA. By reducing burden on financial institutions and establishing a consistent loan-volume test applicable to all financial institutions, the Bureau believes that the proposed provision would facilitate compliance with HMDA's requirements.
The Bureau analyzed HMDA data to determine the optimal loan volume threshold to propose. As discussed above, the Bureau aims to propose a loan volume test that would reduce burden while maintaining sufficient data for meaningful analysis at the institution, local, and national levels. The Bureau excluded open-end lines of credit from the data it used for this analysis because HMDA data currently does not include comprehensive data on open-end lines of credit. Specifically, under the current rule financial institutions may but are not required to report data on home-equity lines of credit. In addition, other open-end lines of credit, such as commercial lines, are not currently reported. As a result, the Bureau's proposed loan volume threshold also excludes open-end lines of credit from the loans that count toward the proposed 25-loan volume test.
The Bureau solicits feedback on whether it should include open-end lines of credit in the types of loans that count toward the proposed loan volume threshold in light of the potential value of information about open-end lines of credit discussed further in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.2(o) below. The Bureau solicits information that would allow it to estimate the impact on HMDA data if open-end lines of credit were excluded from or included in the loan volume threshold. The Bureau is particularly interested in determining the types of institutions that would be covered or not covered, the types of mortgage businesses in which they engage, and the communities they serve.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives generally supported the proposal to establish a uniform loan-volume threshold. The Panel recommended that the Bureau consider revisions to Regulation C that would simplify and clarify whether a financial institution is required to report HMDA data.
To clarify the definition of financial institution and facilitate compliance, the Bureau also proposes to modify and to renumber the commentary to the definition of financial institution. Proposed comment 2(g)–1 discusses the meaning of the preceding calendar year and the preceding December 31 and provides an illustrative example. Proposed comment 2(g)–3 discusses coverage after a merger or acquisition and provides several illustrative examples. Proposed comment 2(g)–4 provides cross references to commentary that are helpful in determining whether activities with respect to a particular loan constitute an origination. Proposed comments 2(g)–5 and –6 provide guidance on whether branches and offices of foreign banks meet the definition of financial institution.
HMDA section 303(2) defines a “mortgage loan” as a loan that is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. However, HMDA does not expressly define “home improvement loan.” Regulation C currently defines “home improvement loan” to mean a loan secured by a lien on a dwelling that is for the purpose, in whole or in part, of repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling or the real property on which it is located. The current definition also includes a non-dwelling secured loan that is for the purpose, in whole or in part, of repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling or the real property on which it is located, and that is classified by the financial institution as a home improvement loan. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to exclude loans that are not secured by a lien on a dwelling from the definition of home improvement loan.
During the 2010 Board Hearings, several participants provided feedback that financial institutions encounter substantial compliance challenges when reporting home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling.
The Bureau acknowledges that unsecured home improvement loan data was useful when Regulation C was originally implemented. However, it appears that the current value of unsecured home improvement loan data is limited. For example, in 2012 unsecured home improvement loans comprised only approximately 1.8 percent of all HMDA records.
Based on these considerations, the burden associated with reporting unsecured home improvement loan data appears to outweigh the value of the information, and it may be appropriate to exclude unsecured loans from the reporting requirements of Regulation C. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.2(i) to define home improvement loan as a covered loan that is for the purpose, in whole or in part, of repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling or the real property on which it is located. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed exclusion is appropriate. In addition to general feedback, the Bureau specifically requests comment regarding the extent to which members of the public use unsecured home improvement loan data to determine whether financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations to serve community housing needs, whether financial institutions rely on unsecured home improvement loan data for purposes of fair lending examinations, and whether there are any other considerations that the Bureau should analyze in determining whether this proposed exception is appropriate.
Current comment Home improvement loan-1 discusses the classification requirement for loans not secured by a lien on a dwelling. To conform to the proposed exclusion of unsecured home improvement loans, the Bureau is also proposing to remove this comment. The Bureau is proposing to replace the current comment with new comment 2(i)–1, which clarifies that a home improvement loan is defined by reference to the purpose of the obligation, and also explains that an obligation is a home improvement loan even if only a part of the purpose is for repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a dwelling. Proposed comment 2(i)–1 also provides several illustrative examples. Proposed comment 2(i)–4 is similar to current comment Home improvement loan-4, but with modifications to conform to the proposed exclusion of unsecured home improvement loans.
Current comment Home improvement loan-5 discusses reporting requirements for home improvement loans. The Bureau believes that the most appropriate location for information related to reporting requirements is in the commentary to the reporting requirements under § 1003.4. Thus, the Bureau is proposing to delete comment Home improvement loan-5.
Section 1003.2(i) is proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 305(a) of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau believes that these proposed modifications and exceptions are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and to facilitate compliance therewith. The Bureau believes that unsecured home improvement loan data may distort the overall quality of the HMDA dataset. Excluding unsecured home improvement loans from the set of reportable data would improve the quality of the data, which would provide the citizens and public officials of the United States with sufficient information to enable them to determine
HMDA section 303(2) defines a “mortgage loan” as a loan which is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. However, HMDA does not expressly define “home purchase loan.” Regulation C currently defines “home purchase loan” to mean a loan secured by and made for the purpose of purchasing a dwelling. As discussed above, the Bureau is proposing several technical modifications to clarify the regulation and facilitate compliance. To further these goals, the Bureau proposes § 1003.2(j), which modifies the current definition of “home purchase loan” to replace “loan” with “covered loan,” to make conforming edits in several of the comments applicable to proposed § 1003.2(j), and to add illustrative examples to these comments. The Bureau is also proposing to add a new comment 2(j)–1, which discusses the definition of home purchase loan and provides illustrative examples.
As part of the effort to clarify Regulation C, the Bureau is proposing to move, modify, or delete several existing comments. Current comment Home purchase loan-3 discusses loans to purchase property used primarily for agricultural purposes. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(b), the Bureau is proposing to move comment Home purchase loan-3 to the commentary under that section. Current comment Home purchase loan-7 discusses reporting requirements for home purchase loans. The Bureau believes that the most appropriate location for information related to reporting requirements is in the commentary to the reporting requirements under § 1003.4. Thus, the Bureau is proposing to delete comment Home purchase loan-7. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.4(a)(3), the Bureau is proposing new comments that are substantively similar to existing comment Home purchase loan-7, but with modifications for clarity and additional illustrative examples. Finally, the Bureau is proposing to add new comment 2(j)–7, which clarifies that, for purposes of § 1003.2(j), an assumption is a home purchase loan when a financial institution enters into a written agreement accepting a new borrower as the obligor on an existing obligation for a covered loan. This proposed comment would further clarify that if an assumption does not involve a written agreement between a new borrower and the financial institution, it is not a home purchase loan for purposes of § 1003.2(j). This proposed comment is substantively similar to current comment 1(c)–9, which the Bureau is proposing to delete, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.1(c). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding these proposed relocations, modifications, and deletions, and solicits feedback regarding whether additional comments or examples would help clarify proposed § 1003.2(j) or facilitate compliance.
Regulation C requires financial institutions to collect and record reportable data in the format prescribed in appendix A of the regulation. This format is referred to as the “loan application register,” but that name is not currently defined in the regulation. To improve the readability of the regulation, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(k), which defines the term “loan application register” to mean a register in the format prescribed in appendix A to this part. The Bureau solicits feedback on this technical modification, and whether additional changes could be made to improve the clarity of the regulation.
Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the property type to which a loan or application relates, including whether the property is a manufactured home as defined in § 1003.2. The Bureau is proposing to make technical corrections and minor wording changes to the definition of manufactured home. Manufactured homes would continue to be defined by referring to the manufactured home construction and safety standards promulgated by HUD. The Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions to report additional information about manufactured home loans and applications, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(29) and (30).
The proposal revises comment Manufactured home-1 for clarity and consistency with the HUD standards. It provides that the definition in § 1003.2(l) refers to the Federal building code for manufactured housing established by HUD, and that modular or other factory-built homes that do not meet the HUD code standards are not manufactured homes for purposes of § 1003.2(l). It would provide that recreational vehicles, which are excluded from the HUD code standards pursuant to 24 CFR 3282.8(g), are also excluded from the definition of dwelling for purposes of § 1003.2(f). Proposed new comment 2(l)–2 provides information on identifying manufactured homes with reference to the data plate and certification label required by HUD standards. The Bureau believes this comment will facilitate compliance by providing general guidance on distinguishing manufactured homes from other types of factory-built residential structures. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether additional guidance would provide greater clarity in this area.
Section 1003.4(a)(5) of Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the property type of the dwelling to which a loan or application relates. Property type includes multifamily dwellings pursuant to appendix A. However, the term “multifamily dwelling” is not specifically defined in Regulation C. Multifamily residential structures are included within the definition of dwelling as provided by comment 1 to the definition of dwelling. Because multifamily lending is different from single-family lending, appendix A provides that certain data points are reported as not applicable for loans or applications related to multifamily dwellings, including owner-occupancy status and the applicant or borrower's gross annual income. Additionally, the applicant or borrower's ethnicity, race, and sex are reported as not applicable for applications and loans involving applicants that are not natural persons, which include many applicants for loans related to multifamily dwellings. The Bureau is proposing to add a new definition of multifamily dwelling as § 1003.2(n). The proposal would define a multifamily dwelling as a dwelling, regardless of construction method, that contains five or more individual dwelling units. The Bureau believes this definition will facilitate compliance by providing a clear definition for
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C provides a definition for the term “open-end line of credit.” Section 1003.4(c)(3) of Regulation C currently provides that a financial institution may report, but is not required to report, home-equity lines of credit made in whole or in part for the purpose of home improvement or home purchase. Regulation C does not currently require reporting for commercial lines of credit secured by a dwelling. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to require mandatory reporting of home-equity line of credit data, and to require reporting of dwelling-secured commercial line of credit data.
The Board's original implementation of Regulation C did not address home-equity lines of credit because depository institutions rarely offered them to consumers.
As the mortgage market continued to evolve, the need for data about the home-equity line of credit market increased. During the mid-2000s home-equity line of credit originations expanded significantly.
Similar concerns exist for dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit. Many people obtain lines of credit secured by their dwelling with the intention of using the line of credit for business purposes.
In addition to improving the usefulness of the HMDA data, the Bureau believes that expanding the scope of Regulation C to include all dwelling-secured lines of credit would be necessary to prevent evasion of HMDA. From the perspective of an individual applicant or borrower, a closed-end mortgage loan and an open-end line of credit are often interchangeable, as people seeking credit need to go through an application process of similar length and complexity. If the reporting requirements applied to closed-end mortgage loans, but not open-end lines of credit, unscrupulous financial institutions could attempt to evade HMDA's requirements by persuading applicants to obtain an open-end line of credit instead of a closed-end mortgage loan.
For these reasons, the Bureau believes that expanding the reporting requirements of Regulation C to all dwelling-secured, open-end lines of credit would provide valuable information to the public and to public officials. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(o), which defines an open-end line of credit as a transaction that: Is an open-end credit plan as defined in § 1026.2(a)(20) of Regulation Z, but without regard to whether the credit is for personal, family, or household purposes, without regard to whether the person to whom credit is extended is a consumer, and without regard to whether the person extending credit is a creditor, as those terms are defined under Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026; is secured by a lien on a dwelling, as defined under § 1003.2(f); is not a reverse mortgage under § 1003.2(q); and is not excluded from Regulation C. Proposed comment 2(o)–1 discusses the definition of open-end line of credit and provides several illustrative examples. This proposed comment also clarifies that financial institutions may rely on § 1026.2(a)(20) and the related commentary in determining whether a transaction is open-end credit under § 1003.2(o)(1). This Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate, and whether this proposed modification would provide useful data to the public and otherwise serve the purposes of HMDA. The Bureau also solicits feedback regarding the costs, burdens, and compliance challenges that would be associated with expanding the transactional coverage of the regulation to include home-equity lines of credit and dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit. Importantly, the Bureau requests that commenters differentiate between home-equity lines of credit and dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit when providing feedback, as precise feedback about these different products would assist in the Bureau's efforts to develop an effective and appropriately tailored final rule.
As part of the Bureau's efforts to reduce regulatory burden by aligning to existing industry or regulatory standards, it may be appropriate to define open-end line of credit by reference to the existing definition of open-end credit plan under Regulation Z, with modifications to conform to the differences in scope between Regulations C and Z, because the Bureau believes that definition is clear and is understood by industry. However, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed definition is appropriate and whether there are other clarifications that would facilitate compliance. Finally, as discussed in the section-by-section analysis to proposed § 1003.4(c)(3) below, the Bureau is also proposing modifications to § 1003.4(c)(3) to conform to the proposed modifications in this section.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives expressed concerns about requiring mandatory reporting of home-equity lines of credit,
Proposed § 1003.2(o) is issued pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 305(a) of HMDA. For the reasons given above, the Bureau believes that including dwelling-secured lines of credit within the scope of the regulation is a reasonable interpretation of HMDA section 303(2), which defines “mortgage loan” to mean a loan which is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. The Bureau interprets that term to include dwelling-secured lines of credit, as those transactions are secured by residential real property, and they may be used for home improvement. As discussed above, information on home-equity lines of credit and dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit would have helped the public understand the risks posed to communities prior to the mortgage crisis. In addition, information on these
In addition, pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau believes that this proposed requirement is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof. For the reasons given above, by requiring all financial institutions to report information regarding home-equity lines of credit and dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit, this proposed modification would ensure that the citizens and public officials of the United States are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether depository institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. In addition, this proposed modification would assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment. Furthermore, as home-equity lines of credit and dwelling-secured commercial lines of credit are a common method of obtaining credit, this proposed modification would assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
HMDA does not expressly define “refinancing.” Regulation C currently defines “refinancing” to mean a new obligation that satisfies and replaces an existing obligation by the same borrower, subject to two qualifications. In the first qualification, for coverage purposes, the existing obligation is a home purchase loan (as determined by the lender, for example, by reference to available documents; or as stated by the applicant), and both the existing obligation and the new obligation are secured by first liens on dwellings. In the second qualification, for reporting purposes, both the existing obligation and the new obligation are secured by liens on dwellings. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing several modifications to clarify and simplify this definition.
The Bureau has received feedback indicating that the current definition of refinancing should be clarified or modified to reduce burden and facilitate compliance. Comments received in response to the 2011 Regulation C Restatement argued that the definition of refinancing in Regulation C should be aligned with the definition in Regulation Z to streamline the regulatory requirements and reduce compliance burden. Other feedback suggests that the current two pronged definition of refinancing—one prong for institutional coverage and one prong for reporting—is also a source of confusion. While the FFIEC published several frequently asked questions to address some of these issues, it appears that some confusion remains.
The Bureau believes that these issues would be best addressed by simplifying the definition and adding clarifying commentary. While financial institutions may often refer to the regulation to determine whether a reportable transaction is considered a refinancing, the Bureau does not believe that financial institutions often reevaluate institutional coverage. When an entity needs to evaluate institutional coverage, it currently needs to refer to the definition of refinancing and financial institution. The Bureau believes that moving the coverage prong to the definition of financial institution would simplify the regulation by placing the information needed to determine institutional coverage in one location. Thus, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(p), which defines a refinancing to mean a covered loan in which a new debt obligation satisfies and replaces an existing debt obligation by the same borrower, in which both the existing debt obligation and the new debt obligation are secured by liens on dwellings. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether these proposed modifications are appropriate, and whether additional clarification is necessary.
Proposed comment 2(p)–1 discusses the definition in § 1003.2(p) and provides illustrative examples of the definition. This proposed comment also clarifies that, if a borrower enters into a new debt obligation that modifies that terms of the existing debt obligation, but does not satisfy and replace the existing debt obligation, the new debt obligation is not a refinancing for purposes of § 1003.2(p). Proposed comment 2(p)–2 explains that, for purposes of determining whether the transaction is a refinancing under § 1003.2(p), both the new debt obligation and the existing debt obligation must be secured by liens on dwellings, and provides several illustrative examples. Proposed comment 2(p)–3 clarifies that the existing and new obligation must both be by the same borrower. This proposed comment provides examples of common scenarios that illustrate this proposed definition.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C expressly addresses reverse mortgages. However, reverse mortgages that are home purchase loans, home improvement loans, or refinancings under the current definitions in § 1003.2 are subject to the data collection and reporting requirements of Regulation C.
Reverse mortgages became increasingly popular in the past decade, and many expect these products to become more popular in the coming years.
Furthermore, the Bureau believes that the current applicability of Regulation C to reverse mortgages is a source of confusion and presents a compliance burden. For example, financial institutions are required to report information on a reverse mortgage that is a home purchase loan, home improvement loan, or a refinancing, but if the reverse mortgage is also a home-equity line of credit, the financial institution may report the information, but is not required to do so. In addition, the Bureau has received feedback that overlapping or inapplicable provisions in the current regulation contribute to this confusion. For example, a financial institution is required to report rate-spread information under § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) for a reverse mortgage that is a home purchase loan or a refinancing, but is not required to report this information for a reverse mortgage that also meets the definition of home-equity line of credit under § 1003.2, because home-equity lines of credit are exempt from the sections of Regulation Z related to the rate-spread calculation. Similarly, financial institutions are not required to report HOEPA status under § 1003.4(a)(13) for reverse mortgages, because reverse mortgages are exempt from HOEPA. While the FFIEC has published FAQs to address much of this confusion, simplifying the applicability of Regulation C to reverse mortgages would further facilitate compliance.
The Bureau believes that all of the concerns discussed above would be addressed by expanding the scope of reportable transactions to include all reverse mortgages, regardless of purpose, and by adding a new definition for reverse mortgages in § 1003.2. As part of the Bureau's efforts to reduce regulatory burden by aligning to existing industry or regulatory standards, it may be appropriate to define reverse mortgages by reference to the existing Regulation Z definition because the Bureau believes that definition is clear and is understood by industry. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.2(q), which would define reverse mortgage as a transaction that is a reverse mortgage transaction as defined in § 1026.33(a) of Regulation Z and that is not excluded from Regulation C pursuant to § 1003.3(c). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed definition is appropriate. Although the Bureau is not proposing commentary to this proposed definition, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether illustrative examples would help clarify the proposed definition or facilitate compliance.
Proposed § 1003.2(q) is issued pursuant to the Bureau's authority under section 305(a) of HMDA. For the reasons given above, the Bureau believes that including reverse mortgages within the scope of the regulation is a reasonable interpretation of HMDA section 303(2), which defines “mortgage loan” to mean a loan which is secured by residential real property or a home improvement loan. The Bureau interprets that term to include reverse mortgages, as those transactions are secured by residential real property, and they may be used for home improvement. In addition, pursuant to its authority under section 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau believes that this proposed adjustment is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, and to facilitate compliance therewith. For the reasons given above, by requiring all financial institutions to report information regarding reverse mortgages, this proposed modification would ensure that the citizens and public officials of the United States are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether depository institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. Furthermore, as reverse mortgages are a common method of obtaining credit, this proposed modification would assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
As part of the efforts to streamline and reduce burden, the Bureau proposes some limited reorganization of and modifications to Regulation C. As discussed below, the Bureau proposes to move and consolidate all excluded transactions into proposed § 1003.3(c). The Bureau proposes to modify the heading of § 1003.3 to reflect the addition of excluded transactions listed below.
Regulation C currently excludes certain transactions from the requirements to collect and report data under HMDA. These exclusions are found in the regulation, appendix A, and commentary. Specifically, § 1003.4(d) lists six types of transactions that are excluded from reporting requirements, including loans the financial institution originated or purchased when acting in a fiduciary capacity, such as a trustee; loans on unimproved land; temporary financing; the purchase of an interest in a pool of loans; the purchase solely of the right to service loans; and loans acquired as part of a merger or acquisition, or as part of the acquisition of all of the assets and liabilities of a branch office. In addition, section I.A.7 of appendix A instructs financial institutions not to report loans with a loan amount less than $500. Comment 1(c)–8 explains that an institution that purchases a partial interest in a loan does not report the transaction. Finally, comment Home purchase loan-3 explains that a loan to purchase property used primarily for
The Bureau proposes to consolidate the list of the excluded transactions in § 1003.3(c). Commentary to the existing provisions would also be consolidated under § 1003.3(c). In addition to consolidating exclusions in one section, the Bureau also proposes additional guidance about the exclusions of loans secured by a lien on unimproved land and of temporary financing.
Industry stakeholders have expressed confusion over the exclusion of a loan secured by a lien on unimproved land. The Bureau proposes new comment 3(c)(2)–1 to clarify whether a loan is secured by a lien on unimproved land. The proposed comment clarifies that a loan that is secured by vacant land under Regulation X § 1024.5(b)(4) is also considered a loan secured by a lien on unimproved land under Regulation C. The proposed comment explains that a loan is not secured by a lien on unimproved land if the financial institution knows or reasonably believes that within two years after the loan closes, a dwelling will be constructed or placed on the land using the loan proceeds. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether this comment is appropriate generally.
Industry stakeholders have requested additional guidance about the meaning of temporary financing that is excluded from HMDA data. The Bureau proposes new comments 3(c)(3)–1 and –2 to clarify the meaning of temporary financing. Proposed comment 3(c)(3)–1 provides that a loan that is considered temporary financing under Regulation X § 1024.5(b)(3) is also considered temporary financing under Regulation C. Proposed comment 3(c)(3)–1 explains that temporary financing refers to loans that are designed to be replaced by permanent financing at a later time. For example, a bridge loan or swing loan is considered temporary financing. A construction loan with a term of two years or more to construct a new dwelling, other than a loan to a bona fide builder (a person who regularly constructs dwellings for sale or lease), is not considered temporary financing.
Questions have also been raised about permanent financing of construction activities. Proposed comment 3(c)(3)–2 explains that a loan that is designed to be converted to permanent financing by the same financial institution or a loan that is used to finance transfer of title to the first user is not temporary financing. Proposed comment 3(c)(3)–2 clarifies that if an institution issues a commitment for permanent financing, with or without conditions, the loan is not considered temporary financing. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether this commentary is appropriate generally.
As part of the reorganization discussed above, the Bureau is also proposing to move comment 4(d)–1 to proposed comment 3(c)(6)–1, comment 1(c)–8 to proposed comment 3(c)(8)–1, and comment Home purchase loan-3 to comment 3(c)(9)–1. The Bureau is also proposing nonsubstantive modifications to the comments. The Bureau is also proposing new comment 3(c)(1)–1 to provide examples of what is meant by a financial institution acting in a fiduciary capacity and new comment 3(c)(4)–1 to provide examples of what is meant by the purchase of an interest in a pool of loans. The examples in proposed comments 3(c)(1)–1 and 3(c)(4)–1 are currently included in § 1003.4(d)(1) and (4), respectively. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed reorganization and modifications are appropriate generally.
Section 1003.4(a) requires financial institutions to collect and record specific information about covered loans, applications for covered loans, and purchases of covered loans. As discussed in detail below, the Bureau proposes several changes to § 1003.4(a) to implement the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA. In addition, the Bureau proposes modifications to Regulation C to reduce redundancy, provide greater clarity, and make the data more useful.
The proposed expanded HMDA data would provide more fulsome information about underwriting, pricing, loan features, and the property securing each reported loan and application. The additional information would enable the public and public officials to better evaluate whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and better identify neighborhoods that could benefit from public or private sector investment. More detail might also shed light on the demand for certain types of loans in certain areas, and whether that demand is being met. In addition, the expanded data would assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and facilitate fair lending analysis. It may also assist the public and public officials in identifying problematic trends in the mortgage market. The proposal also would make technical improvements that would facilitate reporting by better aligning the information collected pursuant to HMDA with financial institutions' business practices and with other regulatory requirements. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed additions to HMDA data are appropriate. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether including additional or different information in the HMDA data, such as an indication of whether the loan is subject to mortgage insurance, would better effectuate HMDA's purposes.
As discussed in part II.B above, the Bureau is proposing alignment of the HMDA data requirements, to the extent practicable, with MISMO/ULDD data standards. During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives' feedback on adopting an industry data standard depended on whether the small entity representative sells loans in the secondary market, or whether their Loan Origination System vendor's system is aligned with industry data standards.
As discussed above in Part II.C, in considering proposed changes to data required to be collected under § 1003.4(a), the Bureau assessed the potential impacts of the proposals on the privacy interests of applicants and borrowers.
The Bureau proposes modifications to § 1003.4(a), comment 4(a)–1, and new commentary to clarify the reporting requirements. In particular, as discussed below, the proposed modifications address a financial institution's responsibilities when reporting a single transaction involving more than one institution and reporting repurchased loans. In addition, the proposed modifications reflect substantive changes concerning reporting requests for preapproval discussed below in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(c)(2). As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to each proposed data point below, the Bureau is also proposing to modify and reorganize the current instructions in part I of appendix A to provide new technical instructions for each data point to facilitate compliance.
Currently, commentary to § 1003.1(c) describes the “broker rule,” which explains a financial institution's reporting responsibilities when a single transaction involves more than one institution. Industry representatives have expressed confusion about this commentary and urged the Bureau to clarify the reporting responsibilities when more than one institution is involved in a transaction. To address these concerns, the Bureau proposes amendments to § 1003.4(a) and its commentary. In particular, the proposed amendments clarify that only one financial institution should report each transaction as an origination or application. The proposed amendments clarify that the financial institution that makes the credit decision prior to closing, or prior to when the loan would have closed if the application does not result in an origination, reports the transaction as an origination or application, respectively.
Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to modify § 1003.4(a) to specify that a financial institution shall collect data regarding originations of covered loans on which it makes a credit decision. In addition, the Bureau proposes new comments 4(a)–4 and –5 to provide further clarification about the reporting responsibilities when more than one institution is involved in a transaction. The proposed amendments modify and consolidate current comments 1(c)–2 through 7, 4(a)(1)–iii, and 4(a)(1)–iv. Proposed comment 4(a)–4 explains that each origination and application is only reported by one financial institution as an origination or application. If more than one institution was involved in an origination of or application for a covered loan, the financial institution that made the credit decision before the loan closed or would have closed reports the origination. In the case of an application for a covered loan that did not result in an origination, the financial institution that made the credit decision or that was reviewing the application when the application was withdrawn or closed for incompleteness reports the application. In certain circumstances, one financial institution would report the transaction as an origination and another financial institution would report the transaction as a purchase. Whether the loan closed or would have closed in the institution's name is not relevant for HMDA reporting. Proposed comment 4(a)–4 provides several illustrative examples. Proposed comment 4(a)–5 discusses reporting responsibilities when a financial institution makes a credit decision through the actions of an agent and provides an illustrative example. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed amendments to § 1003.4(a) and associated commentary are appropriate generally.
The proposal would add new comments 4(a)(8)–4 and 4(a)–6 to provide guidance on reporting repurchased loans. The Bureau understands that there has been confusion about whether the repurchase of a loan that a financial institution originally sold to another financial institution or secondary market entity, such as when the investor requires the financial institution to buy back the loan because it does not meet certain conditions, is reportable under Regulation C. An FFIEC publication in 2010 noted that repurchases qualify as purchases for Regulation C, and provided guidance on how and when to report such purchases.
As amended by section 1094(3)(A)(iv) of the Dodd-Frank Act, HMDA section 304(b)(6)(G) authorizes the Bureau to require a universal loan identifier, as it may determine to be appropriate.
The flexibility of § 1003.4(a)(1)'s current identifier requirement has raised concerns. To the extent that financial institutions include Social Security numbers or other personal identifiers in their loan identifiers, they may be unnecessarily revealing sensitive applicant or borrower information. Although the commentary instructs financial institutions to select “unique” identifiers, it does not provide guidance on how this should be done. Some financial institutions may, for example, be recycling identifiers from year to year.
Because § 1003.4(a)(1) allows financial institutions that purchase previously reported loans to assign a new identifier to the loan, data users cannot link HMDA data that different financial institutions report for the same loan. Different identifiers may be assigned to the same mortgage loan by the financial institution that initially reports it at origination and a financial institution that subsequently reports it as a purchased loan. Even a single financial institution may assign different identifiers to the same loan for different purposes, such as for origination, sale of the loan, and reporting HMDA data. At present, there is no system or process to synchronize those identifiers with respect to each loan. This makes it difficult to track an application or loan over its life and to accurately identify lending patterns.
In developing this proposal, the Bureau has consulted with a variety of stakeholders that have been considering these issues and the need for a more robust mortgage loan identifier.
In December 2013, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Financial Research (OFR) released a working paper discussing the need for a universal mortgage identifier.
The Bureau is encouraged by the progress that is being made in this complex area and will continue to work with industry and other agencies and stakeholders to assess how the HMDA loan identifier relates to broader mortgage identification needs. Many of the mortgage identification options considered by MISMO and OFR would require significant investment of time and money and substantial coordination among all relevant stakeholders to develop. Although the Bureau is not proposing or seeking comment on a mortgage registry or vault at this time, the Bureau will continue to collaborate with industry groups and other government offices that are considering these possibilities, which could potentially serve a range of purposes.
To address the need for a unique loan identifier that can be used for HMDA reporting throughout the life of the loan, the Bureau proposes to strengthen Regulation C's self-assigned loan identifier by substituting proposed § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) for the identification requirement in existing § 1003.4(a)(1).
Two proposed comments to § 1003.4(a)(1)(i) would replace existing comment 4(a)(1)–4. Proposed comment 4(a)(1)(i)–1 explains the uniqueness requirement in proposed § 1003.4(a)(1)(i)(B). Only one ULI should be assigned to any particular application or covered loan, and each ULI should correspond to a single application and, if the application is approved and a loan is originated, the ensuing loan. A financial institution shall use a ULI that was reported previously to refer only to the same loan or application for which the ULI was used previously or to a loan that ensues from an application for which the ULI
Proposed comment 4(a)(1)(i)–2 explains that information that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower includes but is not limited to the applicant's or borrower's name, date of birth, Social Security number, official government-issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, or employer or taxpayer identification number. Pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(a)(1)(i)(B)(3), a financial institution may not include information of this nature in the identifier that it assigns for a covered loan or application.
The Bureau believes that these changes would strengthen the existing identifier in three significant ways. First, by providing additional instructions relating to uniqueness and combining the financial institution's loan-specific identifier with its Legal Entity Identifier, the proposed rule would ensure that the resulting ULI is unique in the entire universe of HMDA loans and applications. Second, by requiring financial institutions that purchase loans to report the ULI that was previously reported, the proposed rule would allow the Bureau and other regulators to track HMDA reporting that is done over time by different financial institutions for a single loan, furthering all of HMDA's purposes. Third, to protect the privacy of borrowers and applicants, the proposal replaces the commentary that discourages using Social Security numbers and names in identifiers with regulation text that prohibits using information that could be used to directly identify the borrower or applicant. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel, which specifically urged the Bureau to consider and seek comment on prohibiting the use of information that could be used to directly identify an applicant or borrower as any component of a loan identifier.
The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed changes to the loan or application identifier used for HMDA reporting purposes are appropriate, as well as feedback on other possible approaches to identifying loans and applications in HMDA reporting. This solicitation of feedback is consistent with the Small Business Review Panel's recommendation that the Bureau seek comment on each of the unique identifiers under consideration that were included in the Dodd-Frank Act.
One alternative that the Bureau is considering is requiring financial institutions to use a secure hash algorithm to encrypt their ULIs prior to submission to the Bureau or the appropriate Federal agency. A hash function is any algorithm that maps data of arbitrary length to data of a fixed length. A secure hash algorithm is designed to provide a measure of encryption by being non-invertible (meaning that the original value cannot be derived from the hash) and to resist “collisions” (meaning that two different values will not hash to the same result). The Bureau could, for example, require use of Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) 3–224 as specified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Federal Information Processing Standard 202
If the Bureau were to require hashing, it could provide tools that financial institutions could use to do the hashing, as well as details that financial institutions or their service providers could use should they wish to integrate the hash algorithm into their own systems. The Bureau invites comment on whether the Bureau should require financial institutions to apply a secure hash algorithm to their Legal Entity Identifier plus the identifier for the loan or application and then report the resulting message digest as the ULI, in lieu of reporting an unhashed ULI. If hashing is recommended, the Bureau also invites comment on how such hashing should be done, including whether a random value should be added prior to hashing through a technique called “salting” to enhance the encryption.
The Bureau is proposing technical corrections and minor wording changes to § 1003.4(a)(1), which requires reporting of the date the application was received. Regulation C requires institutions to report the date the application was received, and comment 4(a)(1)–1 clarifies that institutions may report either the date of receipt or the date shown on the application form to provide greater flexibility for financial institutions but maintain reliable application date data.
The proposal moves the requirement regarding reporting of the date the application was received to new § 1003.4(a)(1)(ii) to provide a separate citation from loan identifier, which is discussed above. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(1)(ii) provides for reporting of the date the application was received or the date shown on the application form, consistent with comment 4(a)(1)–
After the Bureau's 2011 Regulation C Restatement was published, the Bureau received a comment from a stakeholder requesting more flexibility in reporting the date the application was received. The stakeholder asserted that differences in definitions of application under various regulations create difficulty with determining an exact date for purposes of Regulation C. During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed concern about reporting application date for commercial loans.
HMDA section 304(b)(1) requires financial institutions to report “the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans which are insured under Title II of the National Housing Act or under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 or which are guaranteed under chapter 37 of Title 38.” Section 1003.4(a)(2) currently implements this requirement by requiring financial institutions to report the type of loan or application. Paragraph I.A.3 in appendix A further instructs lenders to identify the type of loan or application as conventional, FHA-insured, VA-guaranteed, or FSA/RHS-guaranteed. The Bureau's proposal retains the current reporting requirement, but incorporates the text of the statutory provision, with conforming modifications, directly into Regulation C.
Regulation C has always required financial institutions to report information regarding the type of loan or application.
The Bureau is proposing to revise the technical instructions related to § 1003.4(a)(2) in appendix A. Proposed instruction 4(a)(2)–1 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must select from among four codes to indicate the type of covered loan or application, depending on whether the loan is conventional (Code 1), FHA (Code 2), VA (Code 3), or USDA Rural Development (Code 4). Proposed instruction 4(a)(2)–1.a specifies that Code 2 must be used if the covered loan or application is insured under title II of the National Housing Act. Proposed instruction 4(a)(2)–1.b specifies that Code 3 must be used if the covered loan or application is guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38 of the United States Code. Proposed instruction 4(a)(2)–1.c specifies that Code 4 must be used if the covered loan or application is insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Finally, proposed instruction 4(a)(2)–1.d specifies that Code 1 must be used if the covered loan or application is not insured under title II of the National Housing Act, not insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, and not guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38 of the United States Code.
HMDA section 304(b) requires the disclosure of the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans and home improvement loans, among other things. Section 1003.4(a)(3) of Regulation C requires financial institutions to record the purpose of the loan or application. Appendix A to Regulation C paragraph I.A.5 instructs financial institutions to identify the purpose of a loan or application as either for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. The Dodd-Frank Act did not amend the sections of HMDA relevant to the loan purpose reporting requirement. While the Bureau is only proposing technical modifications to § 1003.4(a)(3) to conform to the addition of closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau is seeking comment regarding whether the loan purpose reporting requirement should be modified with respect to home improvement loans and cash-out refinancings.
The Bureau has received feedback indicating that the current requirement to identify whether a loan or application is for home improvement purposes is a substantial compliance burden. As discussed in part II.A above, the inability to obtain credit to repair and maintain homes was one of the major factors driving urban deterioration in the 1970s. As a result, Congress was particularly concerned about access to home improvement credit when HMDA was enacted.
Although home improvement data was a central concern when HMDA was
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(i) above, the Bureau is proposing to exclude unsecured home improvement loans from the scope of Regulation C. While the Bureau believes that this proposed exclusion will address many of the concerns that have been asserted with regard to home improvement loan reporting, it may be the case that the public no longer finds home improvement data useful. For these reasons, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether § 1003.4(a)(3) should be modified so that financial institutions would not be required to identify covered loans for the purposes of home improvement. The Bureau requests comment regarding the current utility of these data, whether there are ways to lessen the costs associated with reporting secured home improvement loans, and whether there are ways to improve the usefulness of these data. Finally, the Bureau specifically solicits information related to financial institutions' current cost of reporting secured home improvement loans.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives expressed concern about the challenges, compliance costs, and examination burdens associated with reporting home improvement loans.
The Bureau has received feedback indicating that requiring financial institutions to identify whether a loan or application is for a cash-out refinancing would improve the usefulness of the reported data. Several participants during the 2010 Board Hearings argued that cash-out refinancings should be separately identified in the HMDA data.
However, the Bureau is concerned about the potential burdens associated with requiring financial institutions to separately identify cash-out refinancings, and whether such burdens would outweigh the benefit of these additional data. First, the mortgage market does not currently employ a single definition of cash-out refinance. For example, secondary market investors often provide different definitions based on the terms of the transaction.
For these reasons, the Bureau is considering requiring financial institutions to report whether a covered loan or application is for a cash-out refinancing, but wishes to obtain additional information to determine whether such a requirement is appropriate. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether § 1003.4(a)(3) should be modified to require financial institutions to identify separately rate-and-term refinancings from cash-out refinancings. The Bureau specifically solicits feedback on whether there is a clear and bright-line definition of cash-out refinancing that would ensure the public is provided with useful data while minimizing the compliance burden associated with this potential reporting requirement. The Bureau specifically requests comment regarding whether this information would assist community groups and consumers in determining whether financial institutions were meeting the housing needs of communities, whether public officials would use this information to develop housing investment programs, and information regarding whether financial institutions are providing cash-out refinancings in a discriminatory manner. The Bureau also seeks feedback regarding the extent to which financial institutions currently differentiate between rate-and-term refinancings and cash-out refinancings and, for those that do not differentiate
In addition to the requests for feedback regarding home improvement loans and cash-out refinancings addressed above, the Bureau is proposing changes to the loan purpose reporting requirement to conform to the proposed extension of coverage to all dwelling-secured mortgage loans, as discussed above. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.4(a)(3) to provide that financial institutions shall report whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a home purchase loan, a home improvement loan, a refinancing, or for a purpose other than home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate, regarding the costs and benefits associated with this proposed requirements, and regarding whether any additional modifications would be appropriate.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives expressed concern about the applying the HMDA requirements to commercial loans.
The Bureau is also proposing to modify comment 4(a)(3)–2 to clarify that § 1003.4(a)(3) requires a financial institution to report the purpose of a covered loan or application and also specifies the order of importance if a covered loan or application is for more than one purpose. For example, if a covered loan is a home purchase loan as well as a home improvement loan or a refinancing, § 1003.3(a)(3) requires the institution to report the loan as a home purchase loan. This proposed comment clarifies that, if a covered loan is a home improvement loan as well as a refinancing, but the covered loan is not a home purchase loan, § 1003.4(a)(3) requires the institution to report the covered loan as a home improvement loan; and further clarifies that, if a covered loan is a refinancing as well as for another purpose, such as for the purpose of paying educational expenses, but the covered loan is not a home purchase loan or a home improvement loan, § 1003.4(a)(3) requires the institution to report the covered loan as a refinancing.
Proposed comment 4(a)(3)–3 clarifies that, if a covered loan is not a home purchase loan, a home improvement loan, or a refinancing, § 1003.4(a)(3) requires a financial institution to report the covered loan as for a purpose other than home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. For example, if a covered loan is for the purpose of paying educational expenses, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(3) by reporting the covered loan as for a purpose other than home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. Under appendix A, proposed instruction 4(a)(3)–1 provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the covered loan or application purpose on the loan application register.
Current § 1003.4(a)(4) requires financial institutions to identify whether the application is a request for a covered preapproval. The Bureau is proposing to revise the technical instructions related to paragraph 4(a)(4) in appendix A. Proposed instruction 4(a)(4)–1.a would provide instructions for reporting preapprovals requested. The proposed instruction refers to the definition of a preapproval program in § 1003.2(b)(2) and specifies that the code should not be used for withdrawals or requests for preapprovals that are closed for incompleteness, as these preapprovals are not reportable under Regulation C. These instructions would also be specified in the instructions for reporting action taken under paragraph 4(a)(8) and would be added to the instructions for paragraph 4(a)(4) merely for clarity and completeness. Current instruction I.A.8(a) would be renumbered and revised as instruction 4(a)(4)–1.b, which would incorporate a reference to the proposed definition in § 1003.2(b)(2). Current instruction I.A.8(b) would be renumbered and revised as instruction 4(a)(4)–1.c, which would include technical revisions. Current instruction I.A.8(c) would be renumbered and revised as instruction 4(a)(4)–1.d, which would specify that the category of not applicable should be reported for applications for or originations of home improvement loans, open-end lines of credit, home-equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages, and for purchased loans.
The proposal would also delete the language in § 1003.4(a)(4) relating to whether the request for preapproval was denied or resulted in an origination because it is redundant with requirements under §§ 1003.4(a) and 1003.4(a)(8). The requirement to report action taken on preapprovals is currently contained in the reporting requirement for action taken under § 1003.4(a)(8) and the associated instructions in appendix A. This would continue under the proposal. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(4) and the associated instructions in appendix A would focus solely on whether the application was a request for a preapproval for a home purchase loan.
Section 1003.4(a)(5) of Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the property type of the dwelling to which a loan or application relates. Appendix A instructions provide that property type be reported as either a one-to-four-family dwelling (other than manufactured housing), manufactured housing, or a multifamily dwelling.
The Bureau has received feedback that the current reporting requirement has led to questions about how to report modular homes, which are factory-built but meet local building codes instead of the HUD standards for manufactured housing.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(5) replaces the requirement to report property type with the requirement to report the construction method for the dwelling related to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9). The Bureau believes this change in Regulation C's implementation of HMDA may more effectively carry out HMDA's purposes and facilitate compliance therewith, by
As discussed below, the Bureau is also proposing to require financial institutions to report the total number of dwelling units related to the property under § 1003.4(a)(31). The data reported under proposed § 1003.4(a)(31), combined with the proposed definition of multifamily dwelling discussed above, replace the enumeration for multifamily dwellings under § 1003.4(a)(5). The Bureau believes that separating these concepts may have benefits for analyzing HMDA data. For example, the Bureau understands that there has been confusion over reporting home purchase loans that are secured by a manufactured home park and multiple manufactured homes on-site, because manufactured housing and multifamily dwelling are enumerations of the same data point.
The proposed instructions in appendix A provide that modular housing should be reported as site built. The Bureau understands that appraisals do not always distinguish between a modular home and a site built home, and that for many purposes modular homes are treated like site built homes.
The Bureau is proposing to add a new comment under § 1003.4(a)(5). Proposed comment 4(a)(5)–1 would provide additional guidance on identifying and reporting modular homes. Modular homes are distinct from manufactured homes, and the Bureau believes the comment will facilitate compliance by describing and providing guidance on reporting modular homes. The comment notes that modular homes are built to local or other recognized building codes instead of the HUD manufactured home standards and that they do not bear the identifying markers for a manufactured home. The comment also distinguishes between on-frame modular homes (which are built on permanent metal chassis similar to manufactured homes) and off-frame modular homes (which do not have metal chassis). The MISMO data standard treats on-frame and off-frame modular home as separate construction method types.
The Bureau also proposes comment 4(a)(5)–2 to clarify how to report construction method where a covered loan is secured by more than one property. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(9) and in proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2, if more than one property is taken, or in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan or application, a financial institution may either report one of the properties in a single entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Regardless of whether the financial institution elects to report the transaction in one entry or more than one entry, the information required by § 1003.4(a)(5) should relate to the property identified under paragraph 4(a)(9). The Bureau solicits feedback generally on whether the proposed revisions are appropriate or whether more detailed enumerations for construction method would be appropriate.
HMDA section 304(b)(2) requires the disclosure of the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans made to mortgagors who did not, at the time of execution of the mortgage, intend to reside in the property securing the mortgage loan. Section 1003.4(a)(6) of Regulation C requires financial institutions to record the owner-occupancy status of the property to which the loan or application relates. Appendix A to Regulation C paragraph I.A.6 instructs financial institutions to identify the owner-occupancy status as either owner-occupied as a principal dwelling, not owner-occupied as a principal dwelling, or not applicable. While the Dodd-Frank Act did not amend the sections of HMDA relevant to the owner-occupancy status reporting requirement, section 1094(3)(A)(iv) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 304(b) of HMDA to permit the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions to report whether a property will be used as a principal residence, as a second residence, or as an investment property.
As discussed in part II.A above, providing the public with data related to whether properties were occupied by an owner was one of Congress's primary goals when HMDA was originally enacted. Information about the number of homeowners, absentee landlords, and real estate speculators was viewed as necessary to help communities stabilize and improve their neighborhoods.
While the current requirement historically has furthered the purposes of HMDA, several considerations suggest that more granular information related to non-principal dwellings may be necessary. First, over the past several years the increasing popularity of vacation and investment properties has affected the housing supply and economies of many communities. Evidence suggests that the increasing popularity of vacation homes has contributed to a lack of affordable housing in several areas.
Furthermore, the mortgage market has evolved to the point where lending policies and procedures differentiate between principal dwellings, second homes, and investment properties. Financial institutions and investors often apply underwriting criteria tailored to each property type.
When these considerations are taken together, it appears that the concerns that motivated the original distinction between principal and non-principal dwellings now exist with respect to second homes and investment properties. For these reasons, to implement section 304(b)(2) of HMDA and pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.4(a)(6) to provide that a financial institution shall report whether the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) is or will be used by the applicant or borrower as a principal residence, as a second residence, or as an investment property. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate. While the Bureau believes that financial institutions currently differentiate between principal, second, and investment properties for underwriting, pricing, and other purposes, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether, and the extent to which, financial institutions do not recognize this differentiation, and whether financial institutions would encounter unique costs or burdens associated with this proposed requirement.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives expressed concerns about differentiating between principal, second, and investment properties for reporting purposes.
Proposed comment 4(a)(6)–2 clarifies that, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(6), an applicant or borrower can have only one principal residence at a time. Thus, a vacation or other second home would not be a principal residence. However, if an applicant or borrower buys or builds a new dwelling that will become the applicant's or borrower's principal residence within a year or upon the completion of construction, the new dwelling is considered the principal residence for purposes of applying this definition to a particular transaction.
Proposed comment 4(a)(6)–3 explains that, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(6), a property is an applicant's or borrower's second residence if the property is or will be occupied by the applicant or
Proposed comment 4(a)(6)–4 clarifies that, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(6), a property is an investment property if the owner does not occupy the property. Similarly, if a person purchases a property, does not occupy the property, and does not generate income by renting the property, but intends to generate income by selling the property at some point in time, the property is an investment property for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(6). Section 1003.4(a)(6) requires a financial institution to identify a property as an investment property if the owner does not occupy the property, even if the owner does not consider the property as owned for investment purposes. Proposed comment 4(a)(6)–4 also provides several illustrative examples. Under appendix A, proposed instruction 4(a)(6)–1 provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the occupancy type on the loan application register by stating that financial institutions should enter one of four codes, and identifying which codes are applicable to the covered loan or application.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to proposed § 1003.4(a)(9) and in proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2, if more than one property is taken, or in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan or application, a financial institution may report one of the properties in a single entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Regardless of whether the financial institution elects to report the transaction in one entry or more than one entry, the information required by § 1003.4(a)(6) should relate to the property identified under § 1003.4(a)(9). The Bureau is also proposing comment 4(a)(6)–5 to clarify how to report the information required by proposed a covered loan secured by, or in the case of an application, proposed to be secured by, more than one property. The Bureau solicits feedback generally on whether the proposed revisions are appropriate or whether more detailed enumerations for construction method would be appropriate.
As discussed in part II.B above, one of the Bureau's objectives in this proposed rule is to reduce the fixed and ongoing costs associated with reporting HMDA data by aligning to the extent practicable to MISMO. MISMO version 3.3 currently defines an investment property by reference to whether the property will generate rental income. The Bureau is concerned that MISMO's definition does not encompass all properties that commonly would be considered investment properties. For example, a person that purchases a property for a family member to reside in, with the expectation of generating income upon the sale of the property in the future, may consider the property an investment property. Similarly, a person that purchases a property to renovate and sell, but does not reside in the property, may also view the property as an investment property. However, the properties described in these scenarios would not be considered investment properties under the definition in MISMO version 3.3. As a result, to provide clear reporting rules while aligning to MISMO, proposed instruction 4(a)(6)–1 provides one instruction for reporting investment properties that generate income by the rental of the property, and another instruction for reporting investment properties that do not generate income by the rental of the property. The Bureau believes that this proposed instruction will align to MISMO while accommodating financial institutions that are reporting investment properties that are not recognized as such under MISMO, but solicits feedback on this proposed approach, and solicits feedback regarding whether any additional clarifications or changes are needed to facilitate compliance.
Section 1003.4(a)(6) is proposed to implement section 304(b)(2) of HMDA, and is also proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA. The Bureau believes requiring this level of detail about residency status is a reasonable interpretation of HMDA section 304(b)(2). Furthermore, for the reasons given above, the Bureau believes this change is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purpose, because this information will help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and will assist in decisions regarding the distribution of public sector investments. This proposal may also facilitate compliance with HMDA, by aligning to the extent practicable to MISMO standards, thereby reducing costs associated with HMDA reporting.
Section 304(a) and (b) of HMDA requires the disclosure of the dollar amount of loans and applications subject to the statute.
The Bureau is proposing several technical, conforming, and clarifying modifications to § 1003.4(a)(7) and its corresponding instructions and comments. These proposals include moving into the text of § 1003.4(a)(7) several requirements currently found in instructions and comments, and moving into the commentary several explanations and clarifications currently found in appendix A. The Bureau is also proposing to modify the amount reported for an open-end line of credit and clarify what amount should be reported for a reverse mortgage. Finally, the Bureau is proposing that loan amount be reported in dollars rather than rounded to the nearest thousand.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7) requires financial institutions to report the amount of the covered loan or the amount applied for, as applicable. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(i) provides that for a closed-end mortgage loan, other than a purchased loan or an assumption, a financial institution shall report the amount to be repaid as disclosed on the legal obligation. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(i) further provides that, for a purchased closed-end mortgage loan or an assumption of a closed-end mortgage loan, the financial institution shall report the unpaid principal balance at the time of purchase or assumption. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(i) incorporates requirements currently set forth in paragraph I.A.7(a) and (b) of appendix A and comment 4(a)(7)–4.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(ii) provides that for an open-end line of credit, including a purchased open-end line of credit or an assumption of an open-end line of credit, a financial institution shall report the amount of credit available to the borrower under the
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(iii) provides that, for a reverse mortgage, the amount of the covered loan is the initial principal limit, as determined pursuant to section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–20) and implementing regulations and mortgagee letters prescribed by HUD. Regulation C is currently silent as to how loan amount should be determined for a reverse mortgage. The Bureau believes that industry is familiar with HUD's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance Program and its implementing regulations and mortgagee letters and that this modification will produce more consistent and reliable data on reverse mortgages. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate and specifically solicits feedback on the determination of loan amount for non-federally insured reverse mortgages.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(7)–1 provides that the amount of the covered loan or the amount applied for, as applicable, shall be reported in dollars. Currently, loan amount is reported rounded to the nearest thousand. The Dodd-Frank Act requirement that financial institutions report property value will allow the calculation of loan-to-value ratio, an important underwriting variable, but rounded loan amount will render these calculations less precise, undermining their utility to analyses for HMDA purposes. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes that loan amount be reported in dollars. The Bureau solicits feedback on these proposals.
The Bureau proposes to delete paragraph I.A.7(a) and (b) in appendix A and comment 4(a)(7)–4 because these requirements have been incorporated into proposed § 1003.4(a)(7)(i). The Bureau proposes to delete the remainder of the instructions set forth in appendix A relating to paragraph 4(a)(7) and incorporate them into proposed new comments, as discussed below.
The Bureau is proposing technical changes and minor wording changes to comment 4(a)(7)–1 to conform the comment to proposed changes in § 1003.4(a)(7). Proposed comment 4(a)(7)–2 explains how loan amount is to be determined for an application that was denied or withdrawn and incorporates, with minor wording changes, paragraph I.A.7(f) of appendix A. Proposed comment 4(a)(7)–3 explains how loan amount is to be determined for a multi-purpose loan and is renumbered from current comment 4(a)(7)–2, modified to conform to proposed changes concerning reporting loan amount for home-equity lines of credit. Proposed comment 4(a)(7)–4 is renumbered from current comment 4(a)(7)–3 and incorporates paragraph I.A.7(d) of appendix A, modified to conform to proposed changes concerning reporting loan amount for home-equity lines of credit. Proposed comment 4(a)(7)–5 describes how to determine loan amount for a refinancing and incorporates with some modifications paragraph I.A.7(e) of appendix A. Proposed comment 4(a)(7)–6 describes how to determine loan amount for a home improvement loan and incorporates with some modifications paragraph I.A.7(c) of appendix A.
Regulation C § 1003.4(a)(8) requires financial institutions to report the action taken on applications covered by HMDA and the date the action was taken. The proposal would revise the commentary under § 1003.4(a)(8) with respect to rescinded loans, repurchased loans, conditional approvals, and applications received by third parties. The proposal also makes technical corrections and minor wording changes to the instructions in appendix A to use terminology consistent with other changes in the proposal.
Regulation Z provides for a right to rescind certain credit transactions in which a security interest will be retained or acquired in a consumer's principal dwelling. 12 CFR 1026.15(a), 1026.23(a). Comment 4(a)(8)–2 permits institutions to report action taken for rescinded transactions as either an origination or an application approved but not accepted. The Board adopted this comment in 1995, noting that it believed a strict requirement was not warranted in light of the small number of loans rescinded.
Current comment 4(a)(8)–4 describes how institutions should report action taken for conditional approvals that are issued to applicants. The commentary generally provides that financial institutions should report loans approved subject to underwriting conditions which are not met should be reported as a denial, but it also provides that certain customary loan commitment or loan-closing conditions are not underwriting conditions. Additional guidance on this topic had been published in the FFIEC FAQs.
A participant at the Board's 2010 Board HMDA Hearings stated that existing guidance on how to report action taken for conditional approvals was not sufficiently clear and current business practices often involve issuing conditional approvals based on an automated underwriting system result subject to several conditions.
The proposal would renumber current comment 4(a)(8)–4 as 4(a)(8)–5 and revise it to expand the examples of conditions that are considered customary commitment or closing conditions and those that are considered underwriting or creditworthiness conditions. The proposal also revises the comment to provide examples of scenarios when conditionally approved applications could be reported as withdrawn, closed for incompleteness, and approved but not accepted. The
Proposed comment 4(a)(8)–5 would add several examples of how to report action taken when a conditional approval is issued. If the approval is conditioned on satisfying underwriting or creditworthiness conditions and they are not met, the institution reports the action taken as a denial. If, however, the conditions involve submitting additional information about creditworthiness that the institution needs to make the credit decision, and the institution has sent a written notice of incompleteness under Regulation B and the applicant did not respond within the period of time specified in the notice, the institution reports the action taken as file closed for incompleteness. If the conditions are solely customary commitment or closing conditions and the conditions are not met, the institution would report the action taken as approved but not accepted. If all the conditions (underwriting, creditworthiness, or customary commitment or closing conditions) are satisfied and the institution agrees to extend credit but the covered loan is not originated, the institution would report the action taken as application approved but not accepted. If the applicant expressly withdraws before satisfying all underwriting or creditworthiness conditions and before the institution denies the application or closes the file for incompleteness, the institution reports the action taken as application withdrawn. If all underwriting and creditworthiness conditions have been met, and the conditions are solely customary commitment or closing conditions and the applicant expressly withdraws before the covered loan is originated, the institution would report the action taken as application approved but not accepted.
Proposed comment 4(a)(8)–5 would provide additional examples of customary commitment or closing conditions. These examples include: acceptable title insurance binder; clear termite inspection; a subordination agreement from another lienholder; and where the applicant plans to use the proceeds from the sale of one home to purchase another; a settlement statement showing adequate proceeds from the sale. The existing examples of a clear-title requirement and acceptable property survey are retained.
Proposed comment 4(a)(8)–5 would also provide examples of underwriting or creditworthiness conditions. These examples include: conditions that constitute a counter-offer; satisfactory debt-to-income ratio or loan-to-value ratio; determination of the need for private mortgage insurance; satisfactory appraisal requirement; or verification or confirmation that an applicant meets underwriting conditions; including documentation of income or assets.
These additions in proposed comment 4(a)(8)–5 are adapted and developed from the FFIEC FAQs, as well as from feedback received by the Bureau. The Bureau believes these additions are appropriate, but solicits feedback on this conclusion and whether any other examples would be appropriate.
The proposal adds comment 4(a)(8)–6 to provide guidance on how financial institutions should report applications involving more than one institution. The comment cross-references comment 4(a)–4 regarding such applications.
The proposal makes technical corrections and minor wording changes to several comments. Current comments 4(a)(8)–5, –6, and –7 are renumbered as comments 4(a)(8)–7, –8, and –9, respectively, and are revised to use terminology consistent with other changes in the proposal. Proposed comment 4(a)(8)–4 directs financial institutions to refer to proposed comment 4(a)–6 regarding reporting requirements when a covered loan is repurchased by the originating financial institution.
As discussed in detail below, HMDA, as implemented through Regulation C, requires financial institutions to report certain information about the location of the property related to most reported loans and applications. Specifically, Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the MSA or MD, State, county, and census tract of the property related to most reported loans or applications.
Section 1094(3)(A)(iv) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA to authorize the Bureau, as it may determine to be appropriate, to collect the parcel number that corresponds to the real property pledged or proposed to be pledged as collateral. This parcel number would specifically identify the property securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure each covered loan. As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, HMDA also directs the Bureau, with the assistance of certain other agencies and persons as the Bureau deems appropriate, to “develop or assist in the improvement of, methods of matching addresses and census tracts to facilitate compliance by depository institutions in as economical a manner as possible with the requirements of [HMDA].”
Currently, Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information specifically identifying the property securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan. Rather, as discussed in detail below, Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the MSA or MD, State, county, and census tract of the property related to most reported loans or applications.
Including a parcel identifier in the HMDA data would provide many benefits that would further HMDA's purposes. Researchers and community
With more specific information about the location of a property, the Bureau and other agencies would be able to evaluate and, for example, issue publicly available summary reports evaluating HMDA data based on different geographic divisions than census tract. These data and reports may facilitate a better understanding of lending trends in geographic divisions smaller than census tract. Geographic areas that would benefit from special public or private sector investment may be identified with greater precision. These data and reports may also enable more precise analysis of lending patterns to identify potential fair lending redlining concerns.
Including a parcel identifier linked to the location of a property, like postal address, in the HMDA data may also present opportunities for the Bureau to reduce the burden for financial institutions associated with the current property location reporting. The Bureau understands from industry feedback that “geocoding,” (
In addition, a parcel identifier would allow for the identification of multiple loans secured by the same property, which would allow for better understanding of the amount of equity retained in that property over time. Had these data been available leading up to the financial crisis, public officials may have been able to see the extent to which borrowers used up their equity through rapid refinancings. In addition, they would have been able to identify which financial institutions were offering these refinancings, which were often unsound.
Collecting a parcel identifier presents a number of practical challenges. Currently, no universal standard exists for identifying a property so that it can be linked to related mortgage data. There is no single authoritative source that delivers or maintains parcel numbering. Parcel data are collected and maintained by individual local governments with limited State or Federal involvement. Local jurisdictions do not use a standard way to identify properties. In addition, local parcel data are not easily linked to the location of the property, which, as discussed above, substantially amplifies the usefulness of a parcel identifier. Both the postal address and geospatial coordinates of a property are linked to the location of the property and uniquely identify most properties. However, there may be inaccuracies associated with both postal address and geospatial coordinates. For example, neither the postal address nor the geospatial coordinates may be available at the time of origination for properties located in new developments. In addition, both postal address and geospatial coordinates present standardization issues. Financial institutions may not collect and record postal address in the same format. Likewise, financial institutions may not use the same methods for collecting and recording geospatial coordinates. The Bureau understands that financial institutions currently collect postal address during the mortgage origination and application process if the postal address is available, but that not all financial institutions collect geospatial coordinates.
In addition to the practical challenges discussed above, the Bureau recognizes that including a parcel identifier in the HMDA data raises privacy concerns because a parcel identifier, like a postal address, can easily be used to identify a borrower. The Bureau is sensitive to the privacy implications of including postal address in the HMDA data and has considered these implications carefully.
The Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to collect a parcel identifier linked to the location of a property, given the potential benefits of such information to the purposes of HMDA. Collecting postal address may be the least burdensome way to obtain a parcel identifier because financial institutions generally collect postal addresses during the application and origination process.
Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(H), the Bureau proposes § 1003.4(a)(9)(i), which provides that a financial institution is required to report the postal address of the property securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to the covered loan. Proposed § 1003.4(a)(9)(i) applies to all reported covered loans and applications secured by or, in the case of an application, proposed to be secured by any type of manufactured housing. As the Bureau explains further in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(29), the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to implement HMDA through Regulation C to treat mortgage loans secured by all manufactured homes, regardless of the dwelling's legal classification under State law, consistently. The Bureau further believes that collecting the postal address of all covered loan secured by (and applications for covered loans proposed to be secured by) any
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed concerns about the challenges of implementing a parcel identifier for entries that do not result in an origination.
Under HMDA and Regulation C, a financial institution is required to report the location of the property to which the covered loan or application relates by MSA or MD; State; county; and census tract if the loan is related to a property in an MSA or MD in which the financial institution has a home or branch office.
The Bureau has received feedback from industry that reporting property location information is a challenging and costly aspect of HMDA reporting. As discussed above, the Bureau is exploring ways that it can reduce the burden associated with geocoding, such as operational changes that may enable the Bureau to perform geocoding for financial institutions. For example, the Bureau may create a system where a financial institution reports only the postal address and the Bureau provides the financial institution with the census tract, county, MSA or MD, and State. As discussed above, if the Bureau is not able to achieve these operational changes, the Bureau may not elect to finalize the proposal to collect postal address, but likely would finalize the proposal to continue to collect the currently required property location information (census tract, county, MSA or MD, and State).
In addition, the Bureau understands that this potential operational change raises questions. Such questions include whether a financial institution would be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by the Bureau and whether a financial institution would be responsible for geocoding an entry if the Bureau's geocoding system returned an error. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether such an operational change would alleviate burden and on whether such an operational change is appropriate generally.
During the Small Business Review Panel, small entity representatives discussed the potential operational change related to geocoding.
Comments 4(a)(9)–1 and –2 clarify a financial institution's responsibilities when reporting a loan that relates to more than one property. Comment 4(a)(9)–1 discusses how to report a home improvement loan or a refinancing of a home improvement loan that relates to more than one property. Comment 4(a)(9)–2 discusses how to report a home purchase loan or a refinancing of a home purchase loan that relates to more than one property. In light of the Bureau's proposal to expand the types of transactions subject to Regulation C by including all mortgage loans secured by a dwelling (discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.2(d) and (o)), the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to revise comments 4(a)(9)–1 and –2 to provide a single framework clarifying how to report a covered loan related to multiple properties.
Proposed comment 4(a)(9)–1 explains that if a covered loan relates to more than one property and only one property is taken as or, in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security, a financial institution reports the information required by § 1003.4(a)(9) for the property taken as or, in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security. The comment also provides an illustrative example.
Proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2 clarifies that if more than one property is taken or, in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan, a financial institution may report one of the properties using one entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2 further explains that, if a financial institution opts to report all of the properties, the multiple entries should be identical with the exception of required information that is related to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9). If an institution is required to report specific information about the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9), the institution should report the information that relates to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) in that entry. The proposed comment provides an illustrative example.
Proposed comment 4(a)(9)–3 discusses reporting multifamily properties with more than one postal address. The proposed comment explains that for the purposes of § 1003.4(a)(9), a financial institution reports the information required by § 1003.4(a)(9) for a multifamily dwelling with more than one postal address in the same manner described in proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2. The proposed comment also explains that regardless of whether the financial institution elects to report the covered loan using a single entry or multiple entries, the information required by § 1003.4(a)(31) and (32) should refer to the total number of applicable units in the property or properties securing or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed comments are appropriate generally.
The Bureau is also proposing to renumber current comments 4(a)(9)–3 and –4 as proposed comments 4(a)(9)–4 and –5, respectively, and to make certain technical changes to align the comments with proposed § 1003.4(a)(9). In accordance with the changes discussed above, the Bureau proposes technical instructions in appendix A regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register.
HMDA section 304(b)(4) requires the reporting of racial characteristics and gender for borrowers and applicants.
The Bureau proposes to modify instruction I.D.1.b of appendix A, which requires that a financial institution use Code “not applicable” if the borrower or applicant is not a natural person, for example, a corporation or partnership. The Bureau provides this clarification in response to feedback from financial institutions expressing uncertainty as to whether a trust is a non-natural person. For a transaction involving a trust, the financial institution should report “not applicable” for the government monitoring information if the trust is the borrower or applicant. On the other hand, if the applicant or borrower is a natural person, and is the beneficiary of a trust, the financial institution should collect the government monitoring information pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(10)(i).
As part of the Bureau's efforts to streamline and clarify Regulation C, the Bureau is also proposing several technical modifications to the appendix A instructions for applicant information. The Bureau believes these modifications will help financial institutions comply with Regulation C by providing clearer instructions for completion of the applicant information in the loan application register. The Bureau is proposing to remove I.D.2 of appendix A because the instructions are either found elsewhere in the I.D. instructions or are duplicative of instructions in appendix B. For example, instruction I.D.2 provides that all loan applications, including applications taken by mail, internet, or telephone must use a collection form similar to that shown in appendix B regarding ethnicity, race, and sex. This instruction further provides that for applications taken by telephone, the information in the collection form must be stated orally by the lender, except for information that pertains uniquely to applications taken in writing. These instructions are also found in appendix B. The Bureau does not believe these instructions should appear twice and thus is proposing to remove the instructions from appendix A.
In addition, the Bureau is proposing to remove the I.D.2 instruction that provides if the applicant does not provide these data in an application taken by mail or telephone or on the internet, enter the Code for “information not provided by applicant in mail, internet, or telephone application” specified in paragraphs I.D.3., 4., and 5. of this appendix. As the instruction itself points out, paragraphs I.D.3., 4., and 5. of appendix A instruct a financial institution to enter the Code for “information not provided by applicant in mail, internet, or telephone application” and the Bureau does not believe there is a need to repeat that instruction in I.D.2. Therefore, the Bureau is proposing to remove this instruction from I.D.2 and is proposing to modify paragraph I.D.4. by adding a new subparagraph “b,” redesignated as 4(a)(10)(i)–2.b, which would instruct financial institutions to “Use Code 3 (for ethnicity) and Code 6 (for race) if the applicant or co-applicant does not provide the information in an application taken by mail, internet, or telephone” and is proposing to modify paragraph I.D.5. by adding a new subparagraph “a,” redesignated as 4(a)(10)(i)–3.a, which would instruct financial institutions to use “Use Code 3 if the applicant or co-applicant does not provide the information in an application taken by mail, internet, or telephone.”
As part of the Bureau's efforts to streamline and clarify Regulation C, the Bureau is proposing to renumber current instructions I.D.3, I.D.4, and I.D.5. The instructions are renumbered as 4(a)(10)(i)–1, 4(a)(10)(i)–2, and 4(a)(10)(i)–3. In line with the proposed renumbering to appendix A, the Bureau is proposing to renumber comments 4(a)(10)–1, 4(a)(10)–2, 4(a)(10)–3, 4(a)(10)–4, and 4(a)(10)–5. The comments are renumbered as comments 4(a)(10)(i)–1, 4(a)(10)(i)–2, 4(a)(10)(i)–3, 4(a)(10)(i)–4, and 4(a)(10)(i)–5.
Appendix B provides instructions on the collection of the ethnicity, race, and sex of applicants. Appendix B instructs financial institutions to inform applicants that the Federal government requests the information in order to monitor compliance with Federal statutes that prohibit lenders from discriminating against applicants on these bases. Appendix B also provides that financial institutions must ask for the information but cannot require applicants to provide it. Questions requesting the government monitoring information can be listed on the loan application form or on a separate form that refers to the application, and appendix B provides a sample form. Financial institutions must offer an applicant the option of selecting one or more racial designations. For telephone applications, the information in the collection form must be stated orally by the financial institution. When an application is taken in person and the applicant does not provide the information, the financial institution is instructed to note this on the form, inform the applicant that it is required to collect the information based on visual observation and surname, and
Feedback provided during the Board's 2010 Hearings addressed the reluctance of applicants to provide demographic information and the challenges financial institutions face in collecting the information.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, one small entity representative urged the Bureau to eliminate the requirement to record government monitoring information for in-person applications when the customer declines to specify the information.
Section 1094(3)(A)(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA section 304(b)(4) to require financial institutions to report an applicant's or borrower's age.
The MISMO/ULDD data standards for age include both the date of birth (YYYY–MM–DD format) and the age of the borrower in years at the time of application.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives generally expressed concern about the burden of reporting additional borrower data with respect to age.
A requirement to collect and report the age of applicants or borrowers may impose some burden on financial institutions. However, the Bureau believes that the potential costs would be justified by the potential benefits to the public and public officials, and the Bureau believes that reporting of this information is an appropriate method of implementing HMDA section 304(b)(4) and carrying out HMDA's purposes. The Bureau believes this information will assist in identifying whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns, and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(10)(i)–4 in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the age of the applicant or borrower on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(10)(i)–4 directs financial institutions to enter the age of the applicant or borrower, as of the date of
Similar to the existing technical instructions applicable to the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant or borrower, proposed instruction 4(a)(10)(i)–4 directs financial institutions to enter “not applicable” for age only when the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person or when applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by the institution. In addition, similar to the existing instructions applicable to the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant or borrower, proposed instruction 4(a)(10)(i)–4 directs financial institutions to provide the age only for the first co-applicant listed on the application form when there is more than one co-applicant, and if there are no co-applicants or co-borrowers, to report “no co-applicant” in the co-applicant column.
Proposed comment 4(a)(10)(i)–1 discusses the requirement that a financial institution report the age of the applicant or borrower, as of the date of application, in number of years as derived from the date of birth as shown on the application form and provides an illustrative example. Proposed comment 4(a)(10)(i)–2 clarifies that a financial institution reports the age of the applicant or borrower, as of the date of application, in number of years as derived from the date of birth as shown on the application form and does not report age on the basis of visual observation or surname as is required with respect to the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant when the applicant fails to provide the requested information for an application taken in person. The Bureau also is proposing technical modifications to comments 4(a)(10)(i)–3, 4(a)(10)(i)–4, and 4(a)(10)(i)–5.
HMDA section 304(b)(4) requires the reporting of income level for borrowers and applicants. Section 1003.4(a)(10) of Regulation C implements this requirement by requiring collection and reporting of the gross annual income relied on in processing the application for applicants and borrowers. The proposal moves this requirement to § 1003.4(a)(10)(ii) and revises it to require the reporting of gross annual income relied on in making the credit decision requiring consideration of income or, if a credit decision requiring consideration of income was not made, the gross annual income collected as part of the application process. The Bureau has received feedback that the current income reporting requirement is confusing and unclear, and the new language is intended to facilitate compliance by clarifying and providing more specificity on when income is to be reported and what income should be reported.
The proposal revises the instructions in appendix A to be consistent with proposed § 1003.4(a)(10)(ii) and to provide additional guidance. Instruction 4(a)(10)(ii)–1 provides that the financial institution should report the gross annual income that it relied on in making the credit decision requiring consideration of income or, if the application was denied or withdrawn or the file was closed for incompleteness before a credit decision requiring consideration of income was made, the gross annual income collected as part of the application process. Instruction 4(a)(10)(ii)–1.a provides, consistent with the current instructions, that all dollar amounts should be rounded to the nearest thousand and shown in thousands. Instruction 4(a)(10)(ii)–1.b provides, consistent with the current instructions, that an institution would report “NA” for a covered loan or application related to a multifamily dwelling. Instruction 4(a)(10)(ii)–1.c provides that if no income information is collected as part of the application process, or if the covered loan applied for would not or did not require consideration of income, the institution would report “NA.” Instruction 4(a)(10)(ii)–1.d provides that if the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person, or if the applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by the institution, the institution would report “NA.”
The proposal revises and renumbers existing comments, and adds new comments. Specifically, the proposal renumbers current comments 4(a)(10)–6, –7, and –8 as comments 4(a)(10)(ii)–1, –2, and –3 and revises them clarification and to make minor wording changes. The proposal adds new comment 4(a)(10)(ii)–4, which provides that amounts derived from asset depletion or annuitization to determine repayment ability are not part of gross annual income relied on for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(10)(ii). The proposal also adds new comment 4(a)(10)(ii)–5, which provides an example of reporting income information collected as part of the application process if the application is denied or withdrawn or the file is closed for incompleteness before a credit decision requiring consideration of income is made. The example provides that a financial institution would report the income collected if an applicant withdraws an application before a credit decision requiring consideration of income is made, or if an institution denied such an application or closed the file for incompleteness.
The proposal renumbers existing comment 4(a)(10)–6 as new comment 4(a)(10)(ii)–1 and revises it to make technical corrections and minor wording changes, and to provide an additional example of income relied on. The additional example provides that if an institution applied lender or investor guidelines to exclude commission income earned for less than 12 months, the institution would not include that income in the income reported. The Bureau understands that financial institutions frequently apply lender or investor guidelines when calculating income for purposes of making a credit decision. For example, the GSEs and the FHA have guidelines for determining and verifying borrower income for loans that financial institutions intend to sell to or insure with those entities.
The proposal adds new comment 4(a)(10)(ii)–6, which provides guidance on credit decisions requiring consideration of income and credit decisions that did not or would not have required consideration of income. The comment provides that an institution does not report income if the application did not or would not have required a credit decision requiring consideration of income under the policies and practices of the financial institution and provides an example of a streamlined refinance program. Small entity representatives raised concerns about compliance difficulties where certain programs that do not require analysis or verification of borrower income are involved.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives noted difficulties in reporting income relied on for certain loans, especially commercial loans because of technical differences between income and cash flow.
Current § 1003.4(a)(11) requires financial institutions to report the type of entity purchasing a loan that the financial institution originates or purchases and then sells within the same calendar year, and provides that this information need not be included in quarterly updates.
The Bureau is proposing technical modifications to current comments 4(a)(11)–1 and 4(a)(11)–2. The Bureau is also proposing to add six new comments to provide additional guidance regarding the type of purchaser reporting requirement. Additional guidance on this topic had been published in the FFIEC FAQs.
The Bureau is proposing to modify the instructions in appendix A to ensure that they align with the proposed comments as well as with the Bureau's proposal to require quarterly data reporting by certain financial institutions pursuant to § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), including the type of purchaser information. In addition to technical modifications and removing a parenthetical stating that the information need not be included in quarterly updates, the Bureau is proposing to modify instruction I.E.b in appendix A, to be renumbered as 4(a)(11)–1.b, to provide that for purposes of recording the type of purchaser within 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(f), a financial institution should record Code 0 if the institution originated or purchased a covered loan and did not sell it during
The Bureau is also proposing to provide clarification as to when a financial institution should report Code 5 for “private securitization” in proposed instruction 4(a)(11)–1.d, in order to align with proposed comment 4(a)(11)–4. In addition, in order to align with proposed comment 4(a)(11)–3, the Bureau is proposing to provide clarification as to when a financial institution should report Code 8 for “affiliate institution” in proposed instruction 4(a)(11)–1.e by providing a definition of the term “affiliate” for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(11). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether the proposed modifications to the instructions in appendix A are appropriate.
Regulation C currently requires financial institutions to report the difference between a loan's APR and the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction, as of the date the interest rate is set, if the difference equals or exceeds 1.5 percentage points for first-lien loans, or 3.5 percentage points for subordinate-lien loans. The average prime offer rate is an annual percentage rate that is derived from average interest rates, points, and other loan pricing terms offered to borrowers by a representative sample of creditors for mortgage loans with low risk pricing characteristics and is published weekly on the FFIEC Web site. Loans that require rate spread reporting are termed “higher-priced mortgage loans.” The Board added the rate spread requirement in 2002, and amended it in 2008, intending to capture price information for only the subprime market.
In amending HMDA to require financial institutions to report the difference between the annual percentage rate associated with the loan and a benchmark rate or rates for all loans, Congress found that improved pricing information would bring greater transparency to the market and facilitate the enforcement of fair lending laws.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(12) implements HMDA section 304(b)(5)(B) by requiring financial institutions to report the difference between the covered loan's annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction as of the date the interest rate is set. Pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau implements section 304(b)(5)(B) as applicable only to loans subject to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as implemented by Regulation Z. By aligning the scope of the rate spread provision to transactions subject to Regulation Z, the Bureau excepts certain types of loans for which rate spread data would be potentially misleading or unduly burdensome to report, such as business-purpose loans. The Bureau also proposes to exempt reporting of rate spread date for purchased loans, as appendix A currently does for rate-spread data on higher-priced loans, in order to reduce burden.
The Bureau believes that requiring rate spread reporting only for loans subject to TILA, as implemented by Regulation Z, is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes by improving the utility of HMDA data and facilitating compliance by easing reporting burdens. During the Small Business Review Panel process, for example, one small entity representative commented that requiring the rate spread for commercial loans would be difficult because these loans do not have an APR and would require an APR substitute.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives offered differing opinions on the burden of adding the pricing data points under consideration.
The proposed rule moves parts of appendix A to supplement I, modifies the existing commentary, and adds several clarifying comments. Current comment 4(a)(12)(ii)–2 is incorporated into proposed comment 4(a)(12)–4. Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–2, which substantially incorporates current comment 4(a)(12)(ii)–3, clarifies that the Bureau publishes on the FFIEC's Web site (
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–3 clarifies that the requirements of this part refer to the covered loan's annual percentage rate. A financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by relying on the annual percentage rate for the covered loan, as calculated and disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.18 (closed-end credit transactions) or 1026.40 (open-end credit plans) as applicable.
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–4 discusses the fact that the rate spread calculation in § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) is defined by reference to a comparable transaction, which is determined according to the covered loan's amortization type (
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–4.ii clarifies that for variable-rate covered loans, the term for identifying the comparable transaction is the initial, fixed-rate period (
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–4.iii explains that when a covered loan's term to maturity (or, for a variable-rate transaction, the initial fixed-rate period) is not in whole years, the financial institution uses the number of whole years closest to the actual loan term or, if the actual loan term is exactly halfway between two whole years, by using the shorter loan term. For example, for a loan term of ten years and three months, the relevant term is ten years; for a loan term of ten years and nine months, the relevant term is 11 years; for a loan term of ten years and six months, the relevant term is ten years. If a loan term includes an odd number of days, in addition to an odd number of months, the financial institution rounds to the nearest whole month, or rounds down if the number of odd days is exactly halfway between two months. The financial institution rounds to one year any covered loan with a term shorter than six months, including variable-rate covered loans with no initial, fixed-rate periods. For example, if an open-end covered loan has a rate that varies according to an index plus a margin, with no introductory, fixed-rate period, the transaction term is one year.
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–4.iv clarifies that if the amortization period of a covered loan is longer than the term of the transaction to maturity, § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) requires a financial institution to use the loan term to determine the applicable average prime offer rate. For example, assume a financial institution originates a closed-end, fixed-rate loan that has a term to maturity of five years and a thirty-year amortization period that results in a balloon payment. The financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) by using the five-year loan term.
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–5 clarifies that the relevant date to use to determine the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction is the date on which the covered loan's interest rate was set by the financial institution for the final time before closing or account opening. This proposed comment also contains several illustrative examples. Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–5.i explains that if an interest rate is set pursuant to a “lock-in” agreement between the financial institution and the borrower, then the date on which the agreement fixes the interest rate is the date the rate was set. Except as provided in comment 4(a)(12)–4.iii, if a rate is reset after a lock-in agreement is executed (for example, because the borrower exercises a float-down option or the agreement expires), then the relevant date is the date the financial institution exercises discretion in setting the rate for the final time before closing or account opening. The same rule applies when a rate-lock agreement is extended and the rate is reset at the same rate, regardless of whether market rates have increased, decreased, or remained the same since the initial rate was set. If no lock-in agreement is executed, then the relevant date is the date on which the institution sets the rate for the final time before closing or account opening.
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–5.ii clarifies that if a financial institution issues a rate-lock commitment under one loan program, the borrower subsequently changes to another program that is subject to different
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–5.iii clarifies that when a financial institution has reporting responsibility for a covered loan that it received from a broker, as discussed in comment 4(a)–4 (
Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–6 explains that a financial institution is required to compare the covered loan's annual percentage rate to the most recently available average prime offer rate that was in effect for the comparable transaction as of the rate-set date. Proposed comment 4(a)(12)–6 also explains that “most recently available” means the average prime offer rate set forth in the applicable table with the most recent effective date as of the date the interest rate was set. However, § 1003.4(a)(12)(i) does not permit a financial institution to use an average prime offer rate before its effective date.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(12) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter rate spread data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(12)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the rate spread. Proposed instruction 4(a)(12)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must enter “NA” for a loan not subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, a reverse mortgage, a loan that the financial institution purchased or assumed, or an application that does not result in a loan origination or the opening of a line of credit, except for applications that have been approved but not accepted by the applicant.
Regulation C currently requires financial institutions to report whether a loan is subject to HOEPA, as implemented by Regulation Z § 1026.32.
Information regarding the high-cost mortgage status of a loan has been essential to understanding changes in the mortgage market, particularly the subprime market, and to assessing fair lending concerns related to loan pricing. Currently, financial institutions must report only whether a loan is or is not a high-cost mortgage. The Bureau has received feedback suggesting that information regarding the reason for a loan's HOEPA status—whether the loan is considered a high-cost mortgage because of annual percentage rate, points and fees, or both—might improve the usefulness of the HMDA data.
The Bureau believes that the burden of the expanded HOEPA status reporting requirement will be lessened by the fact that financial institutions will likely have to determine which, if any, of the high-cost mortgage triggers are satisfied in order to comply with Regulation Z § 1026.32. But the Bureau also recognizes that the level of complexity proposed above is not currently present in either Regulation C or the MISMO definition of the HOEPA status indicator as used in the ULDD. Despite the potential increased burden described above, feedback received pursuant to the Bureau's outreach activities indicates that a HOEPA status data point that describes the HOEPA status trigger may be justified. Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to modify § 1003.4(a)(13) and the technical instructions to § 1003.4(a)(13) contained in appendix A to provide that a financial institution shall report, for covered loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, whether the covered loan is a high-cost mortgage under Regulation Z § 1026.32(a), and the reason that the covered loan qualifies as a high-cost mortgage, if applicable. The Bureau seeks comment regarding the general utility of the modified data and on the costs associated with reporting the data.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(13) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the high-cost mortgage data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(13)–1 provides that a financial institution must use one of four codes to indicate a loan's HOEPA status: Code 1 if the annual percentage rate exceeds the high-cost mortgage thresholds; Code 2 if the points and fees exceed the high-cost mortgage thresholds; Code 3 if both the annual percentage rate and the points and fees for the transaction exceed the high-cost mortgage thresholds; and Code 4 for all other cases, such as for applications that do not result in originations or loans not subject to the HOEPA.
The changes to § 1003.4(a)(13) are proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D) of HMDA. The Bureau believes these reporting requirements are necessary to carry out the purposes of HMDA. The mortgage market has changed significantly since HMDA was enacted and since the Board required the reporting of additional loan pricing data in 2002, and it continues to evolve. For the reasons given above, the proposal will improve the usefulness and continued utility of HMDA data and help the public and public officials assess whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities.
Current § 1003.4(a)(14) requires financial institutions to report the lien status of the loan or application (first lien, subordinate lien, or not secured by a lien on a dwelling). The technical instructions in current appendix A provide that, for loans that a financial institution originates and for applications that do not result in an origination, a financial institution shall report the lien status as one of the following: Secured by a first lien, secured by a subordinate lien, not secured by a lien, or not applicable (purchased loan).
The Board first promulgated the lien status requirement in 2002 because, among other reasons, “[d]ata on lien
Other than amending the reporting requirement related to the lien status on purchased loans, the proposal is substantially similar to the current requirement with modifications to conform to the MISMO data standard. As discussed in part II.B above, the Bureau believes that HMDA compliance and data submission can be made easier by aligning the requirements of Regulation C, to the extent practicable, to existing industry standards for collecting and transmitting mortgage data. In furtherance of this proposed alignment, the Bureau determined that a similar definition for lien status exists in MISMO, which specifies the priority of the lien against the subject property and provides for the following enumerations: First lien, second lien, third lien, fourth lien, and other. The “other” enumeration is designed to capture the priority of the lien against the subject property beyond a fourth lien, for example, a fifth lien or sixth lien.
Given that loan terms, including loan pricing, vary based on lien status, and in light of the Bureau's proposal to require reporting of certain pricing data for purchased loans, such as the interest rate, the Bureau believes that requiring financial institutions to report the lien status of purchased loans would further enhance the utility of HMDA data overall. The liquidity provided by the secondary market is a critical component of the modern mortgage market, and information about the types of loans being purchased in a particular area, and the pricing terms associated with those purchased loans, is needed to understand whether the housing needs of communities are being fulfilled. This information is particularly important in many communities where neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing efforts depend on the liquidity provided by purchasers of mortgage loans. Thus, by requiring additional information on subordinate lien lending, the Bureau believes that this proposal would ensure that the public and public officials are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. Furthermore, local and State housing finance agency programs facilitate the mortgage market for low- to moderate-income borrowers, often by offering programs to purchase or insure loans originated by a private institution. Since the HMDA data reported by financial institutions does not include the lien status of purchased loans, it is difficult to determine the pricing characteristics of the private secondary market. Lien status information on purchased loans would help public entities, such as local and State housing finance agencies, understand how to complement the liquidity provided by the secondary market in certain communities, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of such public programs. Thus, the Bureau believes that requiring that such data be reported would assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment. Additionally, providing lien status information to purchasers is standard industry practice and is supported by MISMO. For these reasons, the Bureau believes that data on the lien status of purchased loans will further the purposes of HMDA.
Modifying the current reporting requirement in § 1003.4(a)(14) will enhance data collected under Regulation C and facilitate compliance by better aligning the data collected with industry practice. Based on these considerations, pursuant to the Bureau's authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.4(a)(14) to provide that a financial institution shall report the priority of the lien against the property identified under § 1003.4(a)(9), and is also proposing to require reporting of this information for purchased loans. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate generally, and specifically solicits feedback regarding the potential burdens that may result from this proposal to align with the industry data standard. The Bureau also solicits feedback regarding whether alignment with the MISMO industry standard would benefit any other business operations of a financial institution.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a), during the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives' feedback on adopting an industry data standard depended on whether the small entity representative sells loans in the secondary market, or whether their Loan Origination System vendor's system is aligned with industry data standards.
The Bureau is proposing to modify the technical instruction in appendix A regarding how to enter lien status on the loan application register. Like the current instruction, proposed instruction 4(a)(14)–1 directs financial institutions to enter the priority of the lien against the property by entering the applicable code from a list. Proposed instruction 4(a)(14)–1 modifies the current instruction in four ways. First, the Bureau proposes to remove the current instruction for reporting “not applicable” for purchased loans and proposes instruction 4(a)(14)–1.a, which requires that the priority of the lien against the property be entered not only for covered loans that a financial institution originates and for applications that do not result in an origination, but also for covered loans purchased. Second, in an effort to align with the industry data standard, proposed instruction 4(a)(14)–1 directs financial institutions to enter whether the priority of the lien against the property is a first lien, second lien, third lien, fourth lien, or other. Third, as discussed above, the Bureau proposes to modify Regulation C to require reporting only of dwelling-secured transactions and proposes to remove reporting of unsecured home improvement loans. As such, the current option to enter “not secured by a lien” would no longer be applicable, and the Bureau proposes to delete it. Fourth, proposed instruction 4(a)(14)–1.b requires financial institutions to enter Code 5 for “other”
The Bureau believes that its proposed modification to the current reporting requirement under § 1003.4(a)(14) is appropriate to align with the industry data standard. However, the Bureau recognizes the potential burdens that may result from requiring financial institutions to report the lien status of the property as a third lien, fourth lien, or other lien. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether the Bureau should maintain the current reporting requirement (secured by a first lien or subordinate lien) modified to conform to the proposed removal of unsecured home improvement loans, or whether financial institutions prefer to report the actual priority of the lien against the property (secured by a first lien, second lien, third lien, fourth lien, or other). The Bureau also recognizes that requiring the reporting of lien status for purchased loans may impose some potential burdens on financial institutions. However, the Bureau believes that such information is evident on the face of the loan documents and as such the information may be readily available to financial institutions. The Bureau believes that the potential benefits to the public and public officials, as discussed above, justify potential burdens. The Bureau solicits feedback on the general utility of lien status data on purchased loans and on the unique costs and burdens associated with collecting and reporting the data that financial institutions may face as a result of the proposal.
In order to conform the commentary on lien status to the proposed requirement to report the priority of the lien, the Bureau is proposing technical modifications to comment 4(a)(14)–1. In addition, comment 4(a)(14)–1 is amended to provide guidance on reporting lien status for purchased loans; it explains that, for covered loans purchased by a financial institution, lien status is determined by reference to the best information readily available to the financial institution at the time of purchase. Comment 4(a)(14)–1 is also amended to provide additional guidance on reporting lien status for applications that do not result in originations. The amended comment explains that if an application does not result in an origination and the best information readily available to the financial institution at the time final action is taken indicates that there is a mortgage on the property that would not have been paid off as part of the transaction, but the financial institution is not able to determine, based on the best information readily available to it, the exact lien priority of the loan applied for, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(14) by reporting that the property would have been secured by a second lien.
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(9) and in proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2, if more than one property is taken, or in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan or application, a financial institution may report one of the properties in a single entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Regardless of whether a financial institution elects to report the transaction in one entry or more than one entry, the information required by proposed § 1003.4(a)(14) should relate to the property identified under paragraph 4(a)(9). The Bureau proposes to add new comment 4(a)(14)–2 which directs financial institutions to refer to proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2 regarding transactions involving multiple properties and clarifies that a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(14) by reporting lien status in a manner consistent with the property reported under § 1003.4(a)(9).
Although credit scores are often a critically important factor in underwriting and pricing loans, neither HMDA nor Regulation C historically has required reporting of information relating to an applicant's or borrower's credit score. Section 1094(3)(A)(iv) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 304(b) of HMDA to require financial institutions to report “the credit score of mortgage applicants and mortgagors, in such form as the Bureau may prescribe.”
Except for purchased covered loans, proposed § 1003.4(a)(15)(i) requires financial institutions to report the credit score or scores relied on in making the credit decision and the name and version of the scoring model used to generate each credit score. The Bureau believes this interpretation of HMDA section 304(b)(6)(I) is reasonable because the name and version of the scoring model are necessary to understand any credit scores that would be reported, as different models are associated with different scoring ranges and some models may even have different ranges depending on the version used.
The Bureau believes that financial institutions that rely on credit scores in making credit decisions will be able to easily identify the credit score or scores they have relied on in making the credit decision and the name and version of the scoring model used to generate each credit score. However, to facilitate compliance pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau has excluded purchased covered loans from the requirements of proposed § 1003.4(a)(15)(i) because the Bureau anticipates that it could be burdensome for financial institutions that purchase loans to identify the credit score or scores relied on in making the underlying credit decision and the name and version of the scoring model used to generate each credit score. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether this exception is appropriate.
As an alternative to requiring the scoring model name and version, the Bureau is considering requiring financial institutions to indicate the range of possible scores for the scoring model used. However, the Bureau is concerned that the significance of a particular score may vary depending on the model or version used even for models and versions that have identical ranges. The Bureau invites comment on whether it is appropriate to request the name and version of the scoring model and whether the Bureau should require any other related information to assist in interpreting credit score data, such as the date on which the credit score was created.
The Bureau is proposing in § 1003.4(a)(15)(ii) to interpret “credit score” to have the same meaning as in section 609(f)(2)(A) of the Fair Credit
The term “credit score”—
(i) Means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default (and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a “risk predictor” or “risk score”); and
(ii) does not include—
(I) Any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer; or
(II) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.
The Bureau believes that FCRA section 609(f)(2)(A) provides a reasonable definition of “credit score” that is broadly familiar to financial institutions that are already subject to FCRA and Regulation V requirements. Alternatively, the Bureau could define “credit score” based on the Regulation B definitions of “credit scoring system” or “empirically derived, demonstrably and statistically sound, credit scoring system.”
Proposed comment 4(a)(15)–1 explains that a financial institution relies on a credit score in making the credit decision if the credit score was a factor in the credit decision even if it was not a dispositive factor. For example, if a credit score is one of multiple factors in a financial institution's credit decision, the financial institution has relied on the credit score even if the financial institution denies the application because one or more underwriting requirements other than the credit score are not satisfied.
Proposed comment 4(a)(15)–2 addresses circumstances where a financial institution obtains or creates multiple credit scores for a single applicant or borrower. It explains that, when a financial institution obtains or creates two or more credit scores for a single applicant or borrower but relies on only one score in making the credit decision, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting that credit score and information about the scoring model used. For example, a financial institution that relies on the middle of the scores reported would report the middle score, and a financial institution that relies on the average of all of the scores reported would report the average score.
Proposed comment 4(a)(15)–2 also addresses circumstances in which a financial institution relies on multiple scores for the applicant or borrower in making the credit decision. It explains that in such circumstances proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) requires the institution to report one of the credit scores for the borrower or applicant that was relied on in making the credit decision. In choosing which credit score to report in this circumstance, a financial institution need not use the same approach for its entire HMDA submission but should be generally consistent. For example, a financial institution could routinely use one approach within a particular division of the institution or for a category of covered loans. The proposed comment also indicates that in instances such as these, the financial institution should report the name and version of the credit scoring model for the score reported.
Proposed comment 4(a)(15)–3 addresses situations involving credit scores for multiple applicants or borrowers. In a transaction involving two or more applicants or borrowers for which the financial institution relies on a single credit score in making the credit decision for the transaction, the institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting that credit score. Otherwise, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting a credit score for the applicant or borrower that it relied on in making the credit decision, if any, and a credit score for the first co-applicant or co-borrower that it relied on in making the credit decision, if any. To illustrate, assume a transaction involves one applicant and one co-applicant and that the financial institution obtains or creates two credit scores for the applicant and two credit scores for the co-applicant. Assume further that the financial institution relies on the lowest, highest, most recent, or average of all of the credit scores obtained or created to make the credit decision for the transaction. The financial institution would comply with proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting that credit score. Alternatively, assume a transaction involves one applicant and one co-applicant and that the financial institution obtains or creates three credit scores for the applicant and three credit scores for the co-applicant. Assume further that the financial institution relies on the middle credit score for the applicant and the middle credit score for the co-applicant to make the credit decision for the transaction. The financial institution would comply with proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting both the middle score for the applicant and the middle score for the co-applicant.
The Bureau believes that the approach described above for transactions involving multiple credit scores and multiple applicants or borrowers would limit the number of credit scores that financial institutions would need to report (at most two credit scores per application or covered loan), while ensuring that financial institutions provide meaningful credit score information. The Bureau invites comment on whether proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) and its associated commentary provide an appropriate approach to handling situations involving multiple credit scores and multiple applicants or borrowers.
Proposed comment 4(a)(15)–4 clarifies that the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(15) by reporting not
In appendix A, proposed instruction 4(a)(15)–1 directs financial institutions to enter the credit scores relied on in making the credit decision into column “A” for the applicant or borrower and, where required by Regulation C, into column “CA” for the first co-applicant or co-borrower. Where a financial institution is required to report a single score for the transaction that corresponds to multiple applicants or borrowers, proposed instruction 4(a)(15)–1 directs the financial institution to use column “A.”
Proposed instruction 4(a)(15)–2 provides the codes that financial institutions would use for each credit score reported to indicate the name and version of the scoring model used to generate the credit score relied on in making the credit decision, using column “A” and column “CA” as applicable. These include codes for the following models: Equifax Beacon 5.0, Experian Fair Isaac, FICO Risk Score Classic 04, FICO Risk Score Classic 98, VantageScore 2.0, and VantageScore 3.0. They also include a code to use if more than one credit scoring model was used in developing the credit score, as well as a code for any other credit scoring model that is not listed, a code for purchased loans, and a code for use if the financial institution did not rely on a credit score in making the credit decision or if a file was closed for incompleteness or an application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made. If the credit scoring model is one that is not listed, proposed instruction 4(a)(15)–2.b instructs the financial institution to provide the name and version of the scoring model used in a free-form text field. The Bureau invites comment on whether these codes and the fields described above are appropriate for reporting credit score data and on any alternative approaches that might be used for reporting this information.
Section 1003.4(c)(1) currently permits optional reporting of the reasons for denial of a loan application. However, certain financial institutions supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are required by those agencies to report denial reasons on their HMDA loan application registers.
In general, the Bureau believes that the statistical value of optionally reported data is lessened because of the lack of standardization across all HMDA reporters. In addition, the reasons an application is denied are critical to understanding the financial institution's credit decision and to screen for potential violations of antidiscrimination laws, such as ECOA and the Fair Housing Act.
Requiring the collection of the reasons for denial may facilitate more efficient, and less burdensome, fair lending examinations by the Bureau and other financial regulatory agencies, thereby furthering HMDA's purpose of assisting in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes. Furthermore, as discussed above, certain financial institutions supervised by the OCC and the FDIC are required by those agencies to report denial reasons.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, a number of small entity representatives noted that a financial institution may have several reasons for denying a loan, which could complicate reporting.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(16) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the denial reason data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–1 provides that a financial institution must indicate the principal reason(s) for denial, indicating up to three reasons. The proposed instruction modifies the current instruction in three ways. First, the proposed instruction clarifies that a financial institution must list the “principal” reasons for denial. Second, the Bureau is proposing a free-form text field for denial reasons other than those provided in appendix A to account for the variety of reasons that may exist and to improve the utility of the “Other” data. The Bureau explains in proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–2 that, when a financial institution denies an application for a principal reason not included on the list of denial reasons in appendix A, an institution enters the corresponding code for “Other” and enters the principal denial reason(s). Financial institutions would no longer simply enter the corresponding code for “Other” on the loan application register if the reason for denial is not provided on the list but also would be required to enter the principal denial reason(s) in the free-form text field. Third, the proposed instruction adds a code for “not applicable” and explains in proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–3 that this code should be used by a financial
The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether the current codes in appendix A relating to reasons for denial (debt-to-income ratio, employment history, credit history, collateral, insufficient cash, unverifiable information, credit application incomplete, mortgage insurance denied, and other) should be modified. For example, the Bureau solicits feedback as to whether there are additional reasons for denying an application that are commonly used by financial institutions but are not present in the list of denial reasons. The Bureau also solicits feedback on the proposed requirement that a financial institution enter the principal denial reason(s) in the free-form text field when “Other” is entered in the loan application register.
The Bureau is proposing to renumber current instruction I.F.2 of appendix A as instruction 4(a)(16)–4. Proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–4 explains how a financial institution that uses the model form for adverse action contained in appendix C to Regulation B (Form C–1, Sample Notice of Action Taken and Statement of Reasons) should report the denial reasons for purposes of HMDA. Similar to proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–2 discussed above, proposed instruction 4(a)(16)–4 provides that, when a principal reason a financial institution denied the application is not provided on the list of denial reasons in the model form for adverse action contained in appendix C to Regulation B (Form C–1, Sample Notice of Action Taken and Statement of Reasons), financial institutions would no longer simply enter the corresponding code for “Other” on the loan application register but also would be required to enter the principal denial reason(s) in the free-form text field. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether modifications or clarifications would assist financial institutions in complying with the proposed requirement.
Proposed comment 4(a)(16)–1 clarifies that a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(16) by reporting the principal reason(s) it denied the application, indicating up to three reasons. The proposed comment explains that the reasons reported must be specific and accurately describe the principal reasons the financial institution denied the application. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether additional clarifications would assist financial institutions in complying with the proposed requirement.
In order to align with proposed instructions 4(a)(16)–2 and –4, proposed comment 4(a)(16)–2 clarifies that, when a principal reason a financial institution denied the application is not provided on the list of denial reasons in appendix A, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(16) by entering “Other” and reporting the principal reason(s) it denied the application. If an institution chooses to provide the applicant the reason(s) it denied the application using the model form contained in appendix C to Regulation B (Form C–1, Sample Notice of Action Taken and Statement of Reasons) or a similar form, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(16) by entering the “Other” reason(s) that were specified on the form by the institution. If a financial institution chooses to provide the applicant a disclosure of the applicant's right to a statement of specific denial reasons using the model form contained in appendix C to Regulation B (Form C–5, Sample Disclosure of Right to Request Specific Reasons for Credit Denial) or a similar form, or chooses to provide the denial reason(s) orally under Regulation B § 1002.9(a)(2)(ii), the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(16) by entering the principal reason(s) it denied the application. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether additional clarifications would assist financial institutions in complying with the proposed requirement.
Section 304(b) of HMDA
In general, the term “points and fees” refers to costs associated with the origination of a mortgage loan. The Bureau proposes to define total points and fees by reference to TILA, as implemented by Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(1) or (2). Section 1026.32(b)(1) defines “points and fees” for closed-end credit transactions. For a closed-end credit transaction, points and fees include all items included in the finance charge as specified under § 1026.4(a) and (b), with the exception of certain items specifically excluded under § 1026.32(b)(1)(i)(A) through (F). These excluded items include interest or time-price differential; government mortgage insurance premiums and funding fees; annual private mortgage insurance premiums; bona fide third-party charges not retained by the creditor, loan originator, or an affiliate; and certain bona fide discount points paid by the consumer. Section 1026.32(b)(1)(ii) through (vi) lists other items that are specifically included in points and fees, including compensation paid by a consumer or creditor to a loan originator; real estate-related charges; premiums for various forms of credit insurance; the maximum prepayment penalty that may be charged or collected under the terms of the mortgage loan; and the total prepayment penalty incurred by the consumer in a refinance transaction. Points and fees for open-end credit plans are defined in § 1026.32(b)(2). Section 1026.32(b)(2) generally includes all of the charges described above for closed-end transactions, with certain modifications and additions, such as the participation fees payable at or before account opening, and the charge, if any, to draw on the credit line.
The Bureau's 2013 HOEPA Final Rule and 2013 ATR Final Rule both limit the points and fees that lenders may charge when seeking to avoid HOEPA coverage or making a qualified mortgage, respectively.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(17) requires financial institutions to report points-and-fees data for covered loans or applications subject either to HOEPA or the Bureau's 2013 ATR Final Rule. The Bureau intends for loans “subject to” HOEPA to apply to consumer loans secured by the borrower's principal dwelling, except for transactions specifically excluded under § 1026.32(a)(2), such as reverse mortgages, construction loans, loans originated and financed by a State housing finance agency, and loans originated and financed through the USDA's direct loan program. Similarly, loans “subject to” the Bureau's 2013 ATR Final Rule include all consumer loans secured by a dwelling, including any real property attached to a dwelling, as defined in § 1026.2(a)(19), other than transactions exempt under § 1026.43(a), such as home-equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages, and temporary or bridge loans with terms of 12 months or less.
Total points and fees are an important component of loan pricing. Excessive points and fees have been associated with originations of subprime loans and loans to vulnerable borrowers. Panelists at the Board's 2010 Hearings stated that collecting information regarding points and fees would improve the usefulness of the HMDA data for determining whether lenders are serving the housing needs of their communities.
For the above reasons, to implement HMDA section 304(b)(5)(A), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(17), which provides that, for covered loans or applications subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 or covered loans or applications subject to Regulation Z § 1026.43(e)(2)(iii), other than purchased covered loans, financial institutions shall report the total points and fees payable in connection with the covered loan or application, expressed in dollars and calculated in accordance with Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(1) or (2), as applicable. For the reasons given above, the Bureau interprets the Dodd-Frank Act's instruction to “tak[e] into account” the TILA's definition of points and fees as allowing for alignment between the relevant provisions of Regulation C and Regulation Z. Defining points and fees consistently across regulations will avoid confusion and reduce the burden of reporting.
The Bureau solicits comment on the benefits and burdens of the definition of points and fees proposed above, as well as on any specific elements of points and fees to include or exclude. Although the Bureau believes that most financial institutions will have to calculate points and fees for purposes of both the qualified mortgage points-and-fees cap and the high-cost mortgage coverage threshold, it is possible that financial institutions that are certain of a loan's qualified mortgage or high-cost status may not calculate the total points and fees. Furthermore, some financial institutions that calculate the total points and fees might not store the information in a format readily available for HMDA purposes. To facilitate compliance, the Bureau is proposing to exclude covered loans that have been purchased by a financial institution from this reporting requirement because it does not believe that the total points and fees would be evident on the face of the documentation obtained from the seller, but the Bureau solicits feedback on whether to apply the points-and-fees reporting requirement to purchased covered loans.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives expressed concern over the consistency and clarity of the points-and-fees definition.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(17) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter points and fees data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(17)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the total points and fees payable in connection with the covered loan or application. Proposed instruction 4(a)(17)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must enter “NA” for covered loans subject to this reporting requirement for which the total points and fees were not known at or before closing, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires financial institutions to report the total origination charges associated with a covered loan. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Origination charges are costs that the borrower will pay to the creditor and any loan originator for originating and extending the credit. Specifically, for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), origination charges are those costs designated “borrower-paid” on Line A of the Closing Cost Details page of the Closing Disclosure, as provided for in Regulation Z § 1026.38(f)(1). The Bureau established this definition of origination charges in its 2013 TILA–RESPA Final Rule, which will become effective on August 1, 2015.
The Bureau proposes to require reporting of total origination charges, as provided in proposed § 1003.4(a)(18), because they provide a more complete picture of loan pricing. The price of a loan consists of several elements, including the loan terms, discount points and cash rebates, origination points or fees, and closing costs. As the total of all charges paid by the borrower, the proposed origination charges data point provides a measure of the amount of charges directly imposed on a borrower by a financial institution, and therefore discloses information about those charges over which a financial institution exercises the most control. According to feedback received by the Bureau, greater precision among the elements of loan pricing might provide public officials and community organizations with a better understanding of whether financial institutions are charging similar prices to similar applicants.
Furthermore, the Bureau has received feedback suggesting that the reporting burden would be lessened by consistency between HMDA data points and items on the Closing Disclosure, and thus has proposed the definition of origination charges already found in Regulation Z § 1026.38(f)(1).
The Bureau recognizes that the utility of data on origination fees may have some limits. For example, reporting only borrower-paid origination charges will not directly provide data about the total cost of credit associated with a mortgage loan, because certain charges are excluded. Furthermore, by limiting the scope of this provision to covered loans that require closing disclosures, the Bureau acknowledges that the data will lack the total origination charges for loans excluded from Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), such as home-equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages.
Despite these concerns, feedback received in the Bureau's outreach activities suggests that the benefits to the public and to public officials would justify the costs imposed on industry, and the Bureau believes that reporting of origination costs, pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(a)(18), is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. For the reasons given, this information would provide a more complete and useful picture of loan pricing, which would assist public officials and members of the public in determining whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and neighborhoods. As explained above, total origination charges would also assist in identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns. Accordingly, pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(18), which provides that for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), a financial institution shall report the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing, expressed in dollars, as disclosed pursuant to § 1026.38(f)(1). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding the general utility of the revised data, the scope of the reporting requirement, and the costs associated with collecting and reporting the data. In particular, the Bureau solicits comment on whether a more comprehensive measure of the aggregate costs associated with the loan would be more appropriate, such as the amount listed as the “total closing costs” on Line J of the Closing Disclosure.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(18) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(18)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the amount of the total origination charges. Proposed instruction 4(a)(18)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must enter “NA” for covered loans for which no amounts paid by the borrower were known at or before closing, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as open-end lines of credit or reverse mortgages.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires financial institutions to report information regarding total discount points. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Discount points are a type of prepaid interest that borrowers can pay to reduce the interest rate applicable to subsequent payments. For covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), the discount points that financial institutions would report are those listed on Line A.01 of the Closing Disclosure, as described in Regulation Z § 1026.37(f)(1)(i). The Bureau has received feedback suggesting that separate disclosure of discount points provides information useful for identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns.
Furthermore, the Bureau has received feedback suggesting that the reporting burden would be lessened by consistency between HMDA data points and items on the Closing Disclosure, and thus has proposed the definition of discount points already found in Regulation Z § 1026.37(f)(1)(i).
As with other loan pricing data discussed above, discount point data do not include loan profitability, a data point that, according to feedback received at the Board's 2010 Hearings, might permit more detailed analysis of whether similarly situated borrowers are benefiting from similar pricing.
Despite these concerns, feedback received in the Bureau's outreach activities suggests that the benefits to the public and to public officials may justify these costs, and the Bureau believes that reporting of total discount points associated with a covered loan, pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(a)(19), is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. For the reasons given, this information would provide a more complete and useful picture of loan pricing, which would assist pubic officials and members of the public in determining whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Improved pricing information would also assist public officials and members of the public in identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns. Accordingly, pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(19), which provides that for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), a financial institution shall report the points designated as paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate, expressed in dollars, as described in § 1026.37(f)(1)(i). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding the general utility of the revised data, the scope of the proposed reporting requirement, and the costs associated with collecting and reporting the data. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on whether to include any lender credits, premiums, or rebates in the measure of discount points.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(19) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(19)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the total amount of points designated as paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate. Proposed instruction 4(a)(19)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must enter “NA” for covered loans for which no points to reduce the interest rate were known at or before closing, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as open-end lines of credit or reverse mortgages.
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C currently requires financial institutions to report the pre-discounted, risk-adjusted interest rate associated with a covered loan. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
The risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate is the rate that the borrower would have received in the absence of any discount points or rebates. The rate the Bureau is proposing to require institutions to report under proposed § 1003.4(a)(20) is the same base rate from which a financial institution would exclude “bona fide discount points” from points and fees for purposes of determining qualified mortgage and high-cost mortgage status under Regulation Z. Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(1)(i)(E) or (F) (closed-end loans), and § 1026.32(b)(2)(i)(E) or (F) (open-end credit plans), allows bona fide discount points to be excluded from the calculation of points and fees for both qualified mortgages and high-cost mortgages. Specifically, lenders may exclude up to two bona fide discount points from the points-and-fees calculation, depending on whether the “interest rate without any discount” is within one or two percentage points of the average prime offer rate. Under the proposal, financial institutions would report the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate not only for covered loans for which bona fide discount points have been excluded from total points and fees pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.32(b), but for all covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), other than purchased covered loans.
The Bureau has received feedback suggesting that reporting the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate may be useful for fair lending purposes. The risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate reflects loan-level price adjustments made on the basis of the characteristics of the borrower, collateral, and the current market conditions. Because these types of adjustments are typically based on reasonable business considerations, analyzing the changes to loan pricing that occur after a financial institution has determined the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate can provide significant evidence of potential impermissible discrimination. Thus, knowing the pre-discounted interest rate, along with the rate that the borrower actually received and any discount points paid, may assist in understanding the value that the borrower received, relative to otherwise similarly situated borrowers. Also, the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted rate may be used to more efficiently focus fair
However, by limiting the scope of this provision to covered loans that require closing disclosures, the Bureau acknowledges that the data will lack the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate for loans excluded from Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), such as home-equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages.
Despite the potential reporting difficulties outlined above, the Bureau has received feedback in its outreach efforts that the benefits of reporting the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate may justify the costs, and the Bureau believes that reporting this information is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. For the reasons given, this information would provide a more complete and useful picture of loan pricing, which would be helpful in determining whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Improved pricing information would also significantly assist public officials and members of the public in identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns.
Accordingly, pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(20), which provides that for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z § 1026.19(f), other than purchased covered loans, a financial institution shall report the interest rate that the borrower would receive if the borrower paid no bona fide discount points, as calculated pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.32. To facilitate compliance, the Bureau is proposing to exclude covered loans that have been purchased by a financial institution from this reporting requirement because it does not believe that the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate would be evident on the face of the documentation obtained from the seller. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding the general utility of the revised data and on the costs associated with collecting and reporting the data. In particular, the Bureau seeks information on any additional costs that financial institutions or vendors expect to encounter in calculating the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate and in retaining these data specifically for HMDA reporting purposes, and any alternative means to calculate the base rate used in loan pricing that may be less burdensome for institutions to collect and report. The Bureau further solicits comment regarding the scope of the provision, particularly whether to restrict the reporting requirement to covered loans for which financial institutions have chosen to exclude bona fide discount points from total points and fees for the purposes of HOEPA coverage or qualified mortgage status.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives were generally concerned with the definitional clarity of, and the potential burden associated with, reporting the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(20) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(20)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate. Proposed instruction 4(a)(20)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must enter “NA” for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans, open-end lines of credit, or reverse mortgages.
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C currently requires financial institutions to report the interest rate associated with a mortgage loan. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
The Bureau has received feedback that data on the interest rate enables more effective comparison of pricing across borrowers. The interest rate provides pricing information separate from the elements of loan pricing, such as the rate spread,
Although the proposal may entail some burden, the burden will be reduced by the fact that financial institutions will already know the interest applicable to most loans. For example, financial institutions would have to disclose this rate in the loan terms section of the Closing Disclosure, as provided for under Regulation Z § 1026.38(b). The interest rate is also currently found in part I of the Uniform Residential Loan Application form. Furthermore, the interest rate is
The Bureau is aware of the potential costs associated with requiring reporting of the interest rate. Feedback received pursuant to the Bureau's outreach, however, suggests that these costs may be justified by the benefits of this information to the public and to public officials, and the Bureau believes that reporting of the interest rate is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. For the reasons given, this information would provide a more complete and useful picture of loan pricing, which would be helpful in determining whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Furthermore, as a component of loan pricing information, the interest rate would assist public officials and members of the public in identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns. Therefore, pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(21), which provides that financial institutions shall report the interest rate that is or would be applicable to the covered loan at closing or account opening. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives expressed concern over the clarity of the interest rate reporting requirement.
Proposed comment 4(a)(21)–1 clarifies that a financial institution must identify the interest rate that is or would be applicable to the covered loan at closing or account opening, as applicable. Proposed comment 4(a)(21)–1 illustrates that for covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z § 1026.38, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(21) by identifying the interest rate that is the rate disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.37(b)(2). For an adjustable-rate covered loan subject to the disclosure requirements of Regulation Z § 1026.38, if the interest rate at closing is not known, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(21) by identifying the fully indexed rate, which, for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(21), means the interest rate calculated using the index value and margin at the time of closing, pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.37(b)(2). Proposed instructions 4(a)(21)–1 and –2 in appendix A provide technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register.
Regulation C does not currently require financial institutions to report information regarding the prepayment penalty associated with a mortgage loan. However, section 304(b) of HMDA
Prepayment penalties are charges imposed on borrowers for paying all or part of the transaction's principal before the date on which the principal is due. The Bureau is proposing to align the definition of prepayment penalty for HMDA purposes with the definition found in Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(6), which defines prepayment penalty for purposes of the high-cost and qualified mortgage rules. The amount and term in years of any potential prepayment penalty is listed on the loan terms table of the Closing Disclosure.
In amending HMDA through section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress found that more specific loan pricing information would “provide more transparency on underwriting practices and patterns in mortgage lending and help improve the oversight and enforcement of fair lending laws.”
The Bureau has also received feedback favoring consistency between HMDA data points and items on the Closing Disclosure as a means of clarifying the regulation and reducing burden.
To implement HMDA section 304(b)(5)(C), and pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(22), which provides that, except for purchased covered loans, financial institutions shall report the term in months of any prepayment penalty, as defined in Regulation Z § 1026.32(b)(6)(i) or (ii), as applicable. To facilitate compliance, the Bureau is proposing to except covered loans that have been purchased by a financial institution from this reporting requirement because it does not believe that the term of the prepayment penalty would be evident on the face of the documentation obtained from the seller. Although the Closing Disclosure describes the term of any prepayment penalty that may be imposed on the borrower, this information is provided in years, rather than in months, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act and as implemented in this proposal. Furthermore, purchased covered loans not subject to the disclosure
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives did not express significant concerns regarding reporting of the prepayment penalty.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(22) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(22)–1 provides technical instructions for entering the term in months of any prepayment penalty applicable to the covered loan or application. Proposed instruction 4(a)(22)–2 specifies that a financial institution must enter “NA” for covered loans for which a prepayment penalty may not be imposed under the terms of the covered loan, for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans, or for applications for which the prepayment penalty term is unknown, such as applications closed for incompleteness.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C contains requirements regarding an applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Financial institutions often consider the ratio of an applicant's total monthly debt to total monthly income as part of the underwriting process. The Bureau has received feedback suggesting that requiring the collection of this debt-to-income ratio would improve the usefulness of the HMDA data. An applicant's debt-to-income ratio is an important factor in the underwriting process that often affects the pricing of the credit offered to an applicant. In some cases, an applicant's debt-to-income ratio may determine whether an applicant is offered credit at all. Thus, this information may help the public determine whether financial institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. As debt-to-income ratio may be predictive of default, these data may help public officials identify geographic locations or segments of the population that would benefit from special public or private sector investment and lending programs.
However, the Bureau is concerned about the reliability of these data. Debt-to-income ratio calculations may vary between financial institutions, may vary within a financial institution based on the type of loan, and may evolve over time. Financial institutions that intend to sell a mortgage loan may calculate multiple debt-to-income ratios during the underwriting process based on internal and investor requirements. The Bureau is also concerned about the potential burden that may result from requiring the collection of debt-to-income ratio. For example, the Bureau is aware that some financial institutions may not rely on the debt-to-income ratio for underwriting purposes.
Collecting debt-to-income ratio information may impose a burden on financial institutions. However, feedback received from industry, consumer advocates, and other users of HMDA data suggests that the potential benefits to the public and to public officials may outweigh these potential burdens. Based on these considerations, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to require financial institutions to collect information regarding debt-to-income ratio. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(23), which provides that, for a covered loan that is not, or an application that is not for, a reverse mortgage, a financial institution shall report the ratio of the applicant's or borrower's total monthly debt to the total monthly income relied on in making the credit decision. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate generally, and specifically solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement would be less burdensome than requiring the collection of other debt-to-income ratios, such as a debt-to-income ratio that is calculated according to investor requirements but is not relied on in making the credit decision, or the debt-to-income ratio that may be required under the ability-to-repay provisions of Regulation Z. Although the Bureau believes that this proposed requirement may be appropriate, the Bureau recognizes that financial institutions may not always rely on an applicant's debt-to-income ratio when making a credit decision, such as when underwriting a reverse mortgage transaction. Thus, proposed § 1003.4(a)(23) does not require a financial institution to collect debt-to-income ratio information for reverse mortgages. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed exception is appropriate and regarding whether there are other types of transactions in which an applicant's debt-to-income ratio is not considered.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives expressed concern about a potential debt-to-income ratio reporting requirement.
Proposed comment 4(a)(23)–1 discusses the requirement that the financial institution collect the ratio of the applicant's or borrower's total monthly debt to total monthly income relied on in making the credit decision and provides an illustrative example. Proposed comment 4(a)(23)–2 clarifies, if a financial institution relies on a set of underwriting requirements in making a credit decision, and the requirements include the ratio of the applicant's or borrower's total monthly debt to total monthly income as one of multiple factors, § 1003.4(a)(23) requires the financial institution to report the DTI ratio considered as part of the set of underwriting requirements relied on by the financial institution. For example, if a financial institution relies on a set of underwriting requirements in making a credit decision, the requirements include the applicant's or borrower's DTI ratio as one of multiple factors, and the financial institution approves the application, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting the DTI ratio considered as part of the set of underwriting requirements. Similarly, if a financial institution relies on a set of underwriting requirements in making a credit decision, the requirements include the applicant's or borrower's DTI ratio as one of multiple factors, and the financial institution denies the application because an underwriting requirement other than the DTI ratio requirement is not satisfied, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting the DTI ratio considered as part of the set of underwriting requirements.
Proposed comment 4(a)(23)–3 clarifies that, if a file was closed for incompleteness, or if an application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made, a financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting that no credit decision was made, even if the financial institution had calculated the ratio of the applicant's total monthly debt to total monthly income. For example, if a file is incomplete and is so reported in accordance with § 1003.4(a)(8), the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting that no credit decision was made, even if the financial institution had calculated the applicant's DTI ratio. Similarly, if an application was expressly withdrawn by the applicant before a credit decision was made, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting that no credit decision was made, even if the financial institution had calculated the applicant's DTI ratio.
Proposed comment 4(a)(23)–4 clarifies that § 1003.4(a)(23) does not require a financial institution to calculate an applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio, nor does it require a financial institution to rely on an applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio in making a credit decision. This proposed comment also explains that if a financial institution makes a credit decision without relying on the applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(23) by reporting that no debt-to-income ratio was relied on in connection with the credit decision. Under appendix A, proposed instruction 4(a)(23)–1 provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the debt-to-income ratio data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(23)–2 provides technical instructions for covered loans in which no debt-to-income ratio is relied on in connection with the credit decision, for reverse mortgages, for files closed for incompleteness, and for applications withdrawn before a credit decision is made.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C contains requirements regarding loan-to-value ratio. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Financial institutions regularly calculate the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio and the combined loan-to-value (CLTV) ratio as part of the underwriting process. The LTV ratio generally refers to the ratio of the value of a secured debt to the value of the property securing the debt, while the CLTV ratio generally refers to the ratio of total amount of secured debt to the value of the property securing the debt. As discussed in part III.A above, during the 2010 Board Hearings the CLTV ratio was cited as an important factor both in the determination of whether to extend credit and for the pricing terms upon which credit would be extended. The Bureau also has received feedback that the CLTV ratio is a standard underwriting factor regularly calculated by financial institutions, both for a financial institution's own underwriting purposes and to satisfy investor requirements. Furthermore, during the mortgage market crisis State and Federal officials focused on CTLV ratios in crafting emergency mortgage programs to assist homeowners with secured debt in excess of the value of their homes. Thus, it appears that data related to the CLTV ratio would improve the usefulness of the HMDA data.
However, a potential CLTV reporting requirement may pose some challenges. The Bureau is generally concerned about the potential burden associated with reporting calculated data fields, such as the CLTV ratio. Also, CLTV ratio calculations on home-equity lines of credit may vary between financial institutions, which may affect the reliability of these data. Furthermore, the Bureau understands that CLTV ratios may not be entirely accurate, especially when the exact values of multiple debts secured by the property is not known until the date of closing or after, which may present a challenge for reporting purposes.
Notwithstanding these concerns about a CLTV reporting requirement, the potential benefits seem to outweigh the potential burdens. CLTV ratios appear to be calculated by all financial institutions, are a significant factor in the underwriting process, and provide valuable insight into both the stability of community homeownership and the functioning of the mortgage market. In contrast, the burdens associated with a CLTV reporting requirement appear to be limited to the general burden associated with reporting HMDA data and technical issues related to determining the exact ratio. Furthermore, by providing information regarding the combined loan-to-value ratio of transactions subject to Regulation C, this proposed provision would ensure that the citizens and public officials of the United States are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether depository institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. Combined loan-to-value ratio data also would assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment.
Based on these considerations, the Bureau believes that requiring financial institutions to collect information regarding CLTV ratios may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate generally. Also, as part of the Bureau's effort to align the Regulation C requirements to the MISMO data standards discussed in part II.B above, this proposed requirement is conceptually identical and textually similar to the definitions of the Combined LTV Ratio Percent data point and Home Equity Combined LTV Ratio Percent data point in proposed MISMO version 3.3. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed alignment is appropriate and whether the text of this proposed requirement should be clarified. Finally, although the Bureau believes that financial institutions calculate CTLV ratios on all transactions subject to Regulation C, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether there are particular transactions in which a CLTV ratio would not be calculated or considered during the underwriting process.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives stated that a combined loan-to-value ratio reporting requirement would pose particular burdens and challenges, especially with respect to ratios on home-equity lines of credit and commercial loans.
Proposed comment 4(a)(24)–1 clarifies that, if a financial institution makes a credit decision without calculating the combined loan-to-value ratio, the financial institution complies with § 1003.4(a)(24) by reporting that no combined loan-to-value ratio was calculated in connection with the credit decision. Proposed comment 4(a)(24)–2 explains that, for home-equity lines of credit, § 1003.4(a)(24)(i) requires a financial institution to calculate the combined loan-to-value ratio by including the full amount of any home-equity line of credit, whether drawn or undrawn, and provides illustrative examples. Proposed comment 4(a)(24)–3 explains that, for transactions that are not home-equity lines of credit, § 1003.4(a)(24)(ii) requires a financial institution to calculate the combined loan-to-value ratio by including the amounts outstanding under home-equity lines of credit secured by the property, and provides illustrative examples. Under appendix A, proposed instruction 4(a)(24)–1 provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the combined loan-to-value ratio data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(24)–2 provides technical instructions for covered loans in which no combined loan-to-value ratio is calculated.
Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information regarding the loan's term. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(D) requires, for loans and completed applications, reporting of the actual or proposed term in months of the mortgage loan.
Proposed § 1003.4(a)(25) implements HMDA section 304(b)(6)(D) by requiring financial institutions to collect and report data on the number of months until the legal obligation matures for a covered loan or application. During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed some concerns about reporting loan term for certain types of loans, including home-equity lines of credit and loans with different amortization and maturity terms.
Proposed comment 4(a)(25)–1 clarifies that, for covered loans that have different maturity and amortization terms, the loan term reported should be
The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau seek public comment on what method of reporting loan term would minimize burden on small financial institutions while still meeting the Dodd-Frank Act reporting requirements and purposes of HMDA.
Section 1003.4(a)(25) is proposed to implement HMDA section 304(b)(6)(D). The Bureau believes the proposed reporting requirement will provide the public and public officials with data to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities by providing information about the types of loans that are being made, and assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes by allowing information about similar loans to be compared and analyzed appropriately.
Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information regarding the number of months until the first interest rate adjustment may occur. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(B) requires the reporting of the actual or proposed term in months of any introductory period after which the rate of interest may change.
The proposal provides instructions for reporting the introductory period in appendix A. Proposed instruction 4(a)(26)–1.a provides that the introductory period should be reported as “NA” for a fixed-rate covered loan. Proposed instruction 4(a)(26)–1.b provides that the introductory period should be reported as measured from loan origination for purchased loans, or “NA” for purchased fixed rate loans. Proposed comment 4(a)(26)–1 illustrates the requirement to report the introductory interest rate period, including for a home-equity line of credit with a teaser rate; an adjustable-rate loan with an introductory rate; and a step-rate loan with an introductory rate that then adjusts to a different, known rate. Proposed comment 4(a)(26)–2 provides guidance on preferred rates. The comment provides illustrative examples of preferred rates and provides that a financial institution reports initial interest rate periods based on preferred rates only if the terms of the legal obligation provide that the preferred rate will expire at a defined future date.
The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau seek public comment on what method of reporting initial interest rate period would minimize burden on small financial institutions while still meeting the Dodd-Frank Act reporting requirements and purposes of HMDA.
Regulation C currently does not require financial institutions to report whether a loan allows or would have allowed the borrower to make payments other than fully amortizing payments. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(C) requires reporting of the presence of contractual terms or proposed contractual terms that would allow the mortgagor or applicant to make payments other than fully amortizing payments during any portion of the loan term.
The Bureau is proposing to implement HMDA section 304(b)(6)(C) by adding new § 1003.4(a)(27) to Regulation C. During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives generally agreed that this information is currently collected and available.
As discussed above, the Bureau is proposing to define the terms for reporting under Regulation C consistent with Regulation Z definitions to facilitate compliance. The Bureau is proposing to add comment 4(a)(27)–1 in order to facilitate compliance and provide additional guidance on alignment with Regulation Z. Proposed comment 4(a)(27)–1 would provide that an institution may rely on the definitions in Regulation Z for the contractual features to be reported, but clarifies that loans or applications should be reported without regard to whether the credit is for personal, family, or household purposes, without regard to whether the person to whom credit is extended is a consumer, without regard to whether the property is a dwelling, and without regard to whether the person extending credit is a creditor, as those terms are defined in Regulation Z.
Proposed appendix A instructions 4(a)(27)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) provide that financial institutions should indicate whether a particular feature is present by using true or false. The Bureau solicits comments on whether any exclusions for this reporting requirement for certain types of loans are appropriate, and on whether any additional non-amortizing features should be specifically identified rather than reported under § 1003.4(a)(27)(iv).
The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau seek public comment on what method of reporting non-amortizing features would minimize burden on small financial institutions while still meeting the Dodd-Frank Act reporting requirements and purposes of HMDA.
Section 1003.4(a)(27) is proposed to implement HMDA section 304(b)(6)(C). The proposed reporting requirement will provide the public and public officials with data to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities by providing information about the types of loans that are being made, and assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes by allowing information about similar loans to be compared and analyzed appropriately.
Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information regarding the value of the property that secures or will secure the loan. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(A) requires the reporting of the value of the real property pledged or proposed to be pledged as collateral.
Regulation C currently includes a requirement to report loan amount. Knowing the property value in addition to loan amount allows HMDA users to estimate the loan-to-value ratio (LTV). LTV measures a borrower's equity in the property and is a key underwriting and pricing criterion. A 2009 GAO report on fair lending noted that LTV would be valuable for screening for discriminatory practices.
Property valuation has also long been an issue of concern for consumers and fair housing advocates.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed some concerns regarding reporting of property value.
Appendix A provides technical instructions for reporting the property value relied on in dollars. Proposed instruction 4(a)(28)–1 would provide that financial institutions should report the value of the property relied on in making the credit decision in dollars. Proposed instruction 4(a)(28)–2 would provide that if the value of the property was not relied on in making the credit decision, the value should be reported as “NA.” The Bureau is proposing to add new comment 4(a)(28)–1 in order to facilitate compliance. Proposed comment 4(a)(28)–1 explains how to report the property value used by an institution in calculating loan-to-value ratio. The comment provides that if an institution relied on an appraised value for the property, it would report that value. However, if an institution relied
The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau clarify in the proposed rule and seek public comment on which property valuations must be reported. As discussed above, the proposal provides guidance on which property valuation to report.
For the reasons given in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(29), the Bureau believes that implementing HMDA through Regulation C to treat mortgage loans secured by all manufactured homes consistently, regardless of legal classification under State law, is reasonable, and is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes and facilitate compliance therewith. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(A), the Bureau proposes § 1003.4(a)(28). The Bureau believes that this proposed reporting requirement is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and facilitate compliance therewith. The proposed reporting requirement will provide the public and public officials with data to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities by providing information about the values of properties that are being financed; it will also assist public officials in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private investment by providing information about property values; and it will assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes by allowing information about similar loans to be compared and analyzed appropriately.
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires financial institutions to report whether loans relating to manufactured homes are or would be secured by real or personal property. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Since 1988, Regulation C has required reporting of home purchase and home improvement loans and refinancings related to manufactured homes, whether or not the homes are considered real property under State law.
Regulation C's consistent treatment of manufactured housing in HMDA data has proven important to furthering HMDA's purposes and provided communities and public officials with important information about manufactured housing lending.
These features of manufactured home financing can significantly influence interest rates, loan pricing, appraisal and valuation practices, and applicable legal protections.
Different legal regimes, tax implications, appraisal standards, and consumer protections can depend on whether the manufactured home is legally classified as personal property or as real property.
Participants at the Board's 2010 Hearings discussed the distinctions between chattel and real property manufactured home loans, and some recommended differentiating them in HMDA.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives generally did not oppose collecting information on whether manufactured housing is legally classified as real or personal property. Several small entity representatives noted that State laws often determine under what circumstances a manufactured home is treated as real or personal property, and that there are pricing differences dependent on that classification. One small entity representative noted that this could be easily collected, and believed the data would be useful for examiners and consumer advocates and might help to clear up confusion as to the legal classification of the dwelling in certain circumstances.
The Bureau's proposal is tied to the manufactured home's legal classification rather than characterizing the loan as a real property or personal property loan. Both GSE selling guides refer to the legal classification of the manufactured home for purposes of eligibility requirements.
Proposed additions to appendix A provide technical instructions for reporting the legal classification for manufactured housing. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(9) and proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2, if more than one property is taken, or in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan or application, a financial institution may report one of the properties in a single entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Regardless of whether the financial institution elects to report the transaction in one entry or more than one entry, the information required by § 1003.4(a)(29) should relate to the property identified under paragraph 4(a)(9). The Bureau is also proposing comment 4(a)(29)–2 to clarify how to report the information required by § 1003.4(a)(29) for a covered loan secured by, or in the case of an application, proposed to be secured by, more than one property.
For the reasons given, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(29), which requires financial institutions to report whether a dwelling is legally classified as real property or as personal property, if the dwelling related to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) is a manufactured home. Pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a) to provide for adjustments for any class of transactions, the Bureau believes that interpreting HMDA to treat mortgage loans secured by all manufactured homes consistently is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes and facilitate compliance therewith. In light of changes in the mortgage market, certain differences between manufactured housing lending and lending related to site built homes, and the importance of manufactured housing generally, especially for low- and moderate-income families, the Bureau believes proposed § 1003.4(a)(29) will provide necessary insight into this loan data and allow it to be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, assist public officials in public-sector investment determinations, and assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
The Bureau solicits feedback on these requirements in general. In particular, the Bureau solicits feedback on whether reporting the legal classification of the dwelling appropriately captures distinctions between personal property and real property lending, whether possible ambiguities in State law could make compliance with the reporting requirement difficult, and whether additional guidance could be provided on what information financial institutions could rely on to facilitate compliance.
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires financial institutions to report information about what property interest applicants or borrowers have in the land on which their manufactured homes are located. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Manufactured home owners generally either own or lease the land on which the manufactured home is sited.
During the Small Business Review Panel process some small entity representatives believed that it could be burdensome to collect this information. One small entity representative noted that the information may be gathered for loan servicing, but it might not be available for withdrawn or denied loans.
Many manufactured homes are located on leased land. For example, in a manufactured home park, the home owner pays rent to the park owner for the right to occupy a lot in addition to making payments on the manufactured home loan.
As discussed above, if the land on which the manufactured home is located is owned it could be financed with the manufactured home in a land/home loan, or the land could be financed separately or already owned by the manufactured home loan borrower. An emerging scenario involves a manufactured home park owned as a cooperative by the residents, often called a resident-owned community.
Proposed additions to appendix A provide technical instructions for reporting land property interest for manufactured housing covered loans and applications. Proposed instruction 4(a)(30)–1 instructs financial institutions to indicate whether the applicant or borrower's interest in the land on which the manufactured home related to the covered loan or application is or will be located is a direct ownership interest, an indirect ownership interest (such as a home in a resident-owned community), a paid leasehold interest (such as a lease for a lot in a manufactured home park), or an unpaid leasehold interest (such as a home on family-owned land). Proposed instruction 4(a)(30)–1.e provides for reporting “not applicable” if the dwelling is not a manufactured home or the location for the manufactured home is not determined.
The proposal adds comment 4(a)(30)–1, which provides additional guidance on indirect ownership. The comment provides illustrative guidance on identifying resident-owned communities and examples of reporting land property interest depending on whether or not the applicant or borrower is a member of the ownership structure. Proposed comment 4(a)(30)–2 provides additional guidance on leasehold interests. The comment provides illustrative guidance on identifying paid and unpaid leasehold interests. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a)(9) and proposed comment 4(a)(9)–2, if more than one property is taken, or in the case of an application, proposed to be taken as security for a single covered loan or application, a financial institution may report one of the properties in a single entry on its loan application register or report all of the properties using multiple entries on its loan application register. Regardless of whether the financial institution elects to report the transaction in one entry or more than one entry, the information required by § 1003.4(a)(30) should relate to the property identified under paragraph 4(a)(9). The Bureau is also proposing comment 4(a)(30)–3 to clarify how to report the information required by § 1003.4(a)(30) for a covered loan secured by, or in the case of an application, proposed to be secured by, more than one property.
For the reasons given, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(30), which requires financial institutions to report whether the applicant or borrower owns the land on which the manufactured home is or will be located through a direct or indirect ownership interest or leases the land through a paid or unpaid leasehold interest, if the dwelling related to the property identified in § 1003.4(a)(9) is a manufactured home. For the reasons given, the Bureau believes proposed § 1003.4(a)(30) is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes, because it will provide necessary insight into loan data and allow it to be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, since this information can
The Bureau solicits feedback on what information financial institutions collect about an applicant's or borrower's land property interest for manufactured home transactions, and about any potential difficulties associated with complying with the proposed reporting requirement. The Bureau solicits feedback about whether financial institutions consider payments that may be associated with such interests in underwriting, such as lease payments, ground rents, or cooperative fees, and about what information they typically collect regarding such payments. The Bureau specifically solicits feedback regarding reporting land property interest for land that is neither formally leased nor owned, such as family-owned land which the applicant or borrower does not have a direct ownership interest in, and whether the proposal appropriately addresses that scenario. The Bureau also specifically solicits feedback on resident-owned communities and whether the proposal appropriately addresses them. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether this proposal, combined with the proposal regarding manufactured home legal classification, appropriately captures and differentiates the lending products in manufactured home finance; on whether it will allow for communities to assess how financial institutions are meeting the needs of manufactured home owners; and on whether different or additional requirements, enumerations, or guidance is appropriate.
Section 1003.4(a)(5) requires financial institutions to report the property type to which a loan or application relates. Financial institutions must report whether the dwelling is a one-to four-family dwelling (other than manufactured housing), a manufactured home, or a multifamily dwelling. Section 1003.4(a)(5) does not require financial institutions to report the number of units in properties. HMDA to section 304(b)(6)(J) permits disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require. For the reasons discussed below, pursuant to HMDA sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J), the Bureau is proposing to add § 1003.4(a)(31), which requires a financial institution to report the number of individual dwelling units related to the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan. As discussed above, the Bureau is proposing to replace the current property type reporting requirement with construction method and to separate the concept of the number of units from that reporting requirement. Separating the property type requirement into two distinct reporting requirements would better align HMDA reporting with industry practice and will improve the quality of the data.
The Bureau believes that information on the total number of units may improve the utility of HMDA data both for covered loans and applications related to one-to four-family dwellings. The information will allow single family homes to be differentiated from duplexes and similar properties. Multifamily dwellings would be reported with the exact number of units in the property, allowing for more robust analysis of multifamily dwelling finance. The Bureau understands that tracking total number of units is consistent with the MISMO/ULDD data standard.
Multifamily housing has always been an essential component of the nation's housing stock. In the wake of the housing crisis, multifamily housing has taken on an increasingly important role in communities, as families have turned to rental housing for a variety of reasons.
The Bureau notes that many of Regulation C's current and proposed reporting requirements may not be relevant for applications or loans related to multifamily dwellings. Financial institutions report that they often have different processes for commercial loans, including loans related to multifamily dwellings, which increases the burden of reporting data for such loans. The Bureau recognizes the potential burden associated with reporting HMDA data for applications and loans related to multifamily dwellings. However, the importance of multifamily housing to the nation's housing stock and feedback from public officials and consumer advocates suggests that potential benefits to the public and public officials may justify these potential burdens, and the Bureau believes that disclosure of this information, pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(a)(31), is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
Proposed instructions in appendix A provide technical details for reporting total individual dwelling units. Proposed comment 4(a)(31)–1 provides guidance for reporting total units for loans involving multiple properties and cross-references comment 4(a)(9)–2.
The Bureau understands that tracking total number of units is consistent with the MISMO/ULDD data standard.
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires financial institutions to report information about the number of dwelling units in multifamily dwellings that are income-restricted pursuant to affordable housing programs. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Affordable multifamily housing is an important component of the housing market for low- and moderate-income consumers and an important investment of Federal, State, and local government resources. A December 2013 study by the Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies noted that in 2012 approximately 21.1 million households were cost-burdened (
The Bureau believes that data reported pursuant to this proposal could be combined with other existing publically available data to obtain additional detail on multifamily dwelling affordability. For example, HUD maintains publically available data on Low-Income Housing Tax Credit multifamily dwellings;
The Bureau recognizes that reporting information regarding affordability restrictions may entail new burden for some financial institutions that do not ordinarily make loans to affordable housing properties and may be unfamiliar with these programs. Conversely, the Bureau understands that many financial institutions specialize in this kind of lending or have special programs designed for such lending and believes that such institutions may have this information readily available.
Based on these considerations, the Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions to collect and report information on the number of individual dwellings units that are income-restricted pursuant to Federal, State, or local affordable housing programs.
The proposal adds technical instructions for reporting in appendix A. Proposed instruction 4(a)(32)–1 provides general reporting information. Proposed instruction 4(a)(32)–1.a specifies to report “NA” if the dwelling is not a multifamily dwelling. Proposed instruction 4(a)(32)–1.b specifies to report “0” for a multifamily dwelling that contains no individual dwelling units subject to affordable housing income restrictions.
The Bureau is also proposing to add several comments. Proposed comment 4(a)(32)–1 clarifies that income-restricted affordable housing units are generally subject to income level restrictions defined by area median income and provided by HUD or another agency responsible for implementing the applicable affordable housing program. The comment provides that such restrictions are frequently part of programs that provide public funds, special tax treatment, or density bonuses for affordable housing purposes. The comment provides that rent control or rent stabilization and acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers or other portable housing assistance are not considered to create income-restricted affordable housing individual dwelling units for purposes of proposed § 1003.4(a)(32).
Proposed comment 4(a)(32)–2 provides illustrative examples of Federal programs and funding sources that may result in individual dwellings units that are reportable under § 1003.4(a)(32). Proposed comment 4(a)(32)–3 provides illustrative examples of State and local programs and funding sources that may result in individual dwelling units that are reportable under § 1003.4(a)(32). Proposed comment 4(a)(32)–4 provides guidance for reporting income-restricted units for loans involving multiple properties and cross-references comment 4(a)(9)–2.
The Bureau considered whether to require financial institutions to report the specific affordable housing program related to the multifamily dwelling, or the area median income level at which units in the multifamily dwelling are considered affordable. However, the Bureau believes that the large variety of Federal, State, and local affordable housing programs would make implementing a more specific reporting requirement difficult and burdensome. Similarly, reporting income affordability level for units in the multifamily dwelling may be unduly burdensome. The Bureau understands that many affordable multifamily dwellings
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives generally stated that information concerning multifamily affordable housing is not generally disclosed during the loan process and may be labor-intensive to obtain.
The Bureau solicits feedback generally about this requirement. The Bureau also solicits feedback on whether additional information about the program or type of affordable housing would be valuable and serve HMDA's purposes, and about the burdens associated with collecting such information compared with the burdens of the proposal. Comment is solicited on the following points: whether the Bureau should require reporting of information concerning programs targeted at specific groups (such as seniors or persons with disabilities); whether income restrictions above a certain threshold should be excluded for reporting purposes (such as income restrictions above the area median income); whether it would be appropriate to simplify the requirement and report only whether a multifamily dwelling contains a number of income-restricted units above a certain percentage threshold; whether financial institutions should be required to report the specific affordable housing program or programs; and whether financial institutions should be required to report the area median income level at which units in the multifamily dwelling are considered affordable. The Bureau also solicits feedback on whether the burden on financial institutions may be reduced by providing instructions or guidance specifying that institutions only to report income-restricted dwelling units that they considered or were aware of in originating, purchasing, or servicing the loan.
Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information concerning the application channel of covered loans and applications. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(E) requires financial institutions to disclose “the channel through which application was made, including retail, broker, and other relevant categories,” for each covered loan and application.
Congress added the requirement to record information about the application channel to the HMDA data collection because it believed that it would enrich HMDA data. For example, Congress expressed concerns that the wholesale channel may have presented greater risks to applicants than the retail channel during the financial crisis.
The mortgage industry generally operates through three primary application channels: retail, wholesale, and correspondent. These channels are often characterized by three factors: (1) which institution received the application directly from the applicant, (2) which institution made the credit decision, and (3) in which institution's name the loan closed (
On the other hand, the term “wholesale channel,” which is also referred to as the “broker channel,” generally refers to situations where the applicant submits the application to a mortgage broker and the broker sends the application to a financial institution that makes the credit decision on the application and to whom the obligation is initially payable. The wholesale channel may also include some arrangements, such as table funding, in which the obligation is not initially payable to the financial institution that makes the credit decision.
The third channel includes correspondent arrangements between two financial institutions. A purchasing financial institution may have different arrangements with correspondents and may or may not delegate underwriting authority to a correspondent. A correspondent with delegated underwriting authority processes an application much like the retail channel described above. The correspondent receives the application directly from the applicant, makes the credit decision, closes the loan in its name, and immediately or within a short period of time sells the loan to another institution. Correspondents with nondelegated authority operate more like a mortgage broker in the wholesale channel. These correspondents receive the application from the applicant, but prior to closing involve a third-party institution that makes the credit decision. The transaction generally closes in the name of the correspondent, which immediately or within a short period of time sells the loan to the third-
Collecting information about the application channel presents challenges due to the complexities of the mortgage market and HMDA's reporting requirements. As discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.4(a), the financial institution that made the credit decision prior to closing reports the application or origination, regardless of whether the loan closed or would have closed in that institution's name. Since retail lenders, mortgage brokers, and correspondent lenders all may make a credit decision on an application, financial institutions that report HMDA data include financial institutions acting in all of those roles. In addition, each financial institution may play a different role in different transactions,
The Bureau recognizes the potential challenges and burdens with collecting information about application channels. However, the Bureau believes that the potential benefits to the public and to public officials may justify these potential burdens. The Bureau also believes that disclosure of information about application channels is an appropriate method of implementing HMDA section 304(b)(6)(E) in a manner that carries out HMDA's purposes. Based on these considerations, the Bureau proposes to implement the Dodd-Frank amendment by requiring financial institutions to collect and report information on whether the application was submitted directly to the financial institution reporting the loan or application and on whether the covered loan closed or, in the case of an application, would have closed in the name of the financial institution reporting the covered loan or application. The Bureau believes that this approach implements the relevant Dodd-Frank Act amendment to HMDA in a manner that carries out HMDA's purposes, without imposing undue burden.
Accordingly, pursuant to HMDA sections 304(b)(6)(E) and 305(a), the Bureau proposes § 1003.4(a)(33), which provides that, except for purchased covered loans, a financial institution is required to report the following information about the application channel of the covered loan or application: Whether the applicant or borrower submitted the application for the covered loan directly to the financial institution; and whether the obligation arising from the covered loan was or, in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to the financial institution. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate generally and regarding alternative ways to collect application channel information.
To facilitate compliance, the Bureau proposes to except purchased covered loans from this requirement. The Bureau believes that reporting of the information required by proposed § 1003.4(a)(33) for purchased covered loans would not provide valuable information because there would likely be little variation in the information reported (
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives expressed concerns about the burden associated with collecting application channel information given the complexities of their business practices.
The Bureau is also proposing commentary to clarify the reporting requirements. Proposed comment 4(a)(33)–1 contains several examples that illustrate when an application is submitted directly to a financial institution. Proposed comment 4(a)(33)–2 clarifies that proposed § 1003.4(a)(33) requires financial institutions to report whether the obligation arising from a covered loan or application was or would have been initially payable to the institution. Proposed comment 4(a)(33)–3 explains how to report the application channel information if the financial institution is reporting the credit decision made by an agent consistent with comment 4(a)–5. Proposed additions to appendix A provide technical instructions regarding how to enter the application channel data on the loan application register.
Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information regarding a loan originator identifier. HMDA section 304(b)(6)(F) requires the reporting of, “as the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, a unique identifier that identifies the loan originator as set forth in section 1503 of the [Secure and Fair Enforcement for] Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008” (S.A.F.E. Act).
The S.A.F.E. Act provides for a unique identifier under the NMLSR for residential mortgage loan originators.
A requirement to collect and report a mortgage loan originator unique identifier may impose some burden on financial institutions. However, the Bureau believes that the potential benefits to the public and public officials justify these potential burdens, and the Bureau believes that disclosure of this information is an appropriate method of implementing HMDA section 304(b)(6)(F) and carrying out HMDA's purposes. This information is provided on certain loan documents pursuant to the loan originator compensation requirements under TILA.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(34)–1 in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the NMLSR ID on the loan application register. This proposed instruction provides that a financial institution must enter the NMLSR mortgage loan originator unique identifier as set forth in the S.A.F.E. Act, as implemented by Regulation G (S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act—Federal Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators), 12 CFR part 1007, and Regulation H (S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act—State Compliance and Bureau Registration System), 12 CFR part 1008. Proposed instruction 4(a)(34)–2 in appendix A provides that, in the event that the mortgage loan originator is not required to obtain and has not been assigned an NMLSR ID, a financial institution must enter “NA” for not applicable.
Proposed comment 4(a)(34)–1 discusses the requirement that a financial institution report the NMLSR ID for the mortgage loan originator and describes the NMLSR ID. Proposed comment 4(a)(34)–2 discusses the requirement that a financial institution report “NA” for not applicable when the mortgage loan originator is not required to obtain and has not been assigned an NMLSR ID. Proposed comment 4(a)(34)–2 also provides that, if a mortgage loan originator has been assigned an NMLSR ID, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(34) by reporting the mortgage loan originator's NMLSR ID regardless of whether the mortgage loan originator is required to obtain an NMLSR ID for the particular transaction being reported by the financial institution. The proposed comment provides an illustrative example.
Proposed comment 4(a)(34)–3 explains that, in the event that more than one individual meets the definition of a mortgage loan originator, as defined in Regulation G § 1007.102 or Regulation H § 1008.23, for a covered loan or application, a financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(34) by reporting the NMLSR ID of the individual mortgage loan originator with primary responsibility for the transaction.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives generally supported the proposal to require the NMLSR identifier for the mortgage loan originator involved in the transaction.
Currently, Regulation C does not require financial institutions to report information regarding recommendations received from automated underwriting systems, and HMDA does not expressly require this itemization. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of “such other information as the Bureau may require.”
Financial institutions often use an automated underwriting system (AUS) to evaluate an applicant's credit risk. As part of the Board's 2010 Hearings, feedback indicated that HMDA data would be improved if institutions collected and reported the automated underwriting system used in evaluating an application and the recommendation generated by that system.
However, collecting and reporting data on automated underwriting systems may pose some concerns. The automated underwriting systems used by financial institutions to evaluate applications may vary between institutions, as may the recommendations generated by those systems. Financial institutions may also have different policies and procedures for how they use automated underwriting systems and recommendations in the credit decision. In addition, automated underwriting systems may evolve over time. Financial institutions may also use multiple automated underwriting systems to evaluate an application and may consider multiple recommendations generated by those systems in their underwriting process. Requiring the collection of information about automated underwriting systems may impose burden on financial institutions.
Notwithstanding the concerns associated with collecting and reporting information about automated underwriting systems, the potential benefits to the public and public officials may justify any potential burden. The Bureau believes that the collection and reporting of information related to automated underwriting systems, pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(a)(35), is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. This data would assist in understanding a financial institution's underwriting decisionmaking and would also provide useful information for fair lending examinations. Based on these considerations and pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(35)(i), which provides that except for purchased covered loans, a financial institution shall report the name of the automated underwriting system it used to evaluate the application and the recommendation generated by that automated underwriting system. In addition, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii), which defines an automated underwriting system as an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor that provides a recommendation regarding whether the application is eligible to be purchased, insured, or guaranteed by that securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether these proposed requirements are appropriate and whether there are alternative ways to collect information about automated underwriting systems. For example, financial institutions could report the recommendation generated by the automated underwriting system used to evaluate the application in defined categories, such as “recommended approval” or “recommended referral for further underwriting.” In addition, the Bureau specifically solicits feedback regarding whether limiting the definition of an automated underwriting system as proposed in § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) to one that is developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor is appropriate. The Bureau is not proposing commentary to proposed § 1003.4(a)(35)(ii) because the Bureau believes that the proposed definition is straightforward and clear. However, the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether commentary is needed to clarify this proposed definition or to facilitate compliance.
The Bureau believes that financial institutions that use automated underwriting systems to evaluate applications will be able to easily identify the system used and the recommendation generated by that system for purposes of HMDA reporting. However, the Bureau has excluded purchased covered loans from the requirements of proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) because the Bureau anticipates that it could be burdensome for financial institutions that purchase covered loans to identify the AUS data. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether this exclusion is appropriate.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, the small entity representatives indicated that, in general, their financial institutions use manual underwriting procedures, and reporting AUS recommendations could provide an incomplete and distorted picture of loan transactions, triggering unnecessary fair lending scrutiny.
The Bureau is also proposing technical instructions in appendix A regarding how to enter the AUS data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(35)–1 provides that a financial institution must indicate the name of the automated underwriting system it used to evaluate the application by entering the applicable code from a list. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed instruction is appropriate generally, and specifically solicits feedback regarding whether the proposed instruction would be less burdensome if the list of systems were modified by, for example, either removing or adding systems.
Proposed instruction 4(a)(35)–2 provides that a financial institution completing the loan application register must indicate the AUS recommendation generated by the automated underwriting system that it used to evaluate the application by entering the applicable code from a list. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed instruction is appropriate generally, and specifically solicits feedback regarding whether the proposed instruction would be less burdensome if the list of AUS recommendations were modified by, for example, either removing or adding AUS recommendations. In addition, the
Proposed comment 4(a)(35)–1 discusses the requirement that a financial institution report the AUS recommendation generated by the automated underwriting system used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and provides an illustrative example. A financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting an AUS recommendation if the recommendation was considered by the financial institution in its underwriting process. For example, when a financial institution takes into account a combination of an AUS recommendation and manual underwriting in making the credit decision, the financial institution has considered the AUS recommendation in its underwriting process and reports the AUS recommendation.
Proposed comment 4(a)(35)–2.i discusses the requirement that a financial institution report the name of the automated underwriting system used by the financial institution to evaluate the application, explains which automated underwriting system to report if a financial institution uses multiple automated underwriting systems to evaluate an application, and provides an illustrative example. When a financial institution uses more than one automated underwriting system to evaluate an application, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the AUS developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor that was used closest in time to the credit decision. For example, when a financial institution processes an application through the automated underwriting system of two different government-sponsored enterprises, such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the AUS that was used closest in time to the credit decision. If a financial institution processes an application through multiple AUSs at the same time, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the name of the AUS that generated the recommendation that was a factor in the credit decision.
Proposed comment 4(a)(35)–2.ii explains which AUS recommendation to report if a financial institution obtains multiple AUS recommendations and provides an illustrative example. When a financial institution obtains two or more AUS recommendations for an applicant or borrower that are generated by a single or multiple AUSs developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the AUS recommendation generated closest in time to the credit decision. For example, when a financial institution receives a recommendation from an automated underwriting system that requires the financial institution to manually underwrite the loan, but in addition the financial institution subsequently processes the application through a different automated underwriting system that also generates a recommendation, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the AUS recommendation generated closest in time to the credit decision. If a financial institution obtains multiple AUS recommendations at the same time, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting the AUS recommendation that was a factor in the credit decision.
Proposed comment 4(a)(35)–3 explains when a financial institution should report “not applicable” for AUS data and provides examples. If a financial institution does not use an AUS developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor to evaluate the application, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting “not applicable.” For example, if a financial institution only manually underwrites an application and does not consider an AUS recommendation in its underwriting process, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting “not applicable.” Also, if the file was closed for incompleteness or the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made, the financial institution complies with proposed § 1003.4(a)(35) by reporting “not applicable.”
Neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires a financial institution to report whether a reportable transaction is a reverse mortgage. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Currently, although reverse mortgages that are home purchase loans, home improvement loans, or refinancings are reported, financial institutions are not required to separately identify if a reported transaction is a reverse mortgage. Some of the current reporting requirements, and several of the proposed requirements discussed above, do not apply to reverse mortgages. The Bureau has received feedback indicating that financial institutions often spend significant amounts of time during the reporting process dealing with submission errors related to inapplicable fields. Requiring financial institutions to identify whether a reportable transaction is a reverse mortgage would allow the Bureau to develop a submission system that automatically removes inapplicable fields. This should facilitate compliance by reducing the amount of time financial institutions spend on submitting reverse mortgage data.
Identifying reverse mortgages may also improve the usefulness of the data. Communities concerned about homeownership stability may find the data useful because reverse mortgages reduce a homeowner's equity over time. Also, as reverse mortgages are commonly obtained by persons approaching retirement age, communities and public officials may use the data to ascertain whether financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations to all members of their communities. Furthermore, improved reverse mortgage data would assist in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination statutes.
For the reasons discussed above, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to improve the HMDA data related to reverse mortgages. Pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(36), which provides that a financial institution shall record whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a reverse mortgage, and whether the reverse
During the Small Business Review Panel process, small entity representatives were not generally concerned about a proposed requirement to identify reverse mortgages.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires a financial institution to identify whether a reportable transaction is a home-equity line of credit. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
Although home-equity lines of credit currently may be reported as home purchase loans or home improvement loans, users of the HMDA data cannot identify which of those loans are home-equity lines of credit. The Bureau has received feedback indicating that the HMDA data would be improved by requiring financial institutions to identify whether a reportable transaction is a home-equity line of credit. Studies suggest that in the years leading up to the financial crisis home-equity line of credit lending was correlated with real estate speculation, which may have increased prices in local housing markets prior to the collapse.
For the reasons discussed above, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(37), which provides that a financial institution shall report whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, an open-end line of credit, and also whether the open-end line of credit is a home-equity line of credit. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate. While the Bureau is not proposing commentary applicable to proposed § 1003.4(a)(37), the Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether commentary would help clarify or illustrate the requirements of this proposed reporting requirement. Proposed instruction 4(a)(37)–1 provides technical requirements for completing the loan application register by identifying the applicable transactions for one of three codes.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C contains requirements related to whether a loan would be considered a qualified mortgage under Regulation Z. Section 304(b) of HMDA permits the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require.
The ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage provisions of Regulation Z were intended to address several of the harmful underwriting practices that were used in the years leading up to the financial crisis. For this reason, community groups and public officials may find useful information related to loans that are exempt from the ability-to-repay requirements, subject to the requirements, or are considered qualified mortgages under the requirements. Furthermore, this information may be particularly useful for public officials at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as these agencies administer programs and promulgate regulations related to the ability-to-repay standards of Regulation Z. In addition, the Bureau has received feedback that information related to qualified mortgage status is becoming a part of the mortgage industry data standards. Thus, this information is consistent with the regular business practices of financial institutions and should not be particularly burdensome.
For these reasons, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to require financial institutions to report data regarding whether a covered loan is a qualified mortgage under Regulation Z. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(38), which provides that a financial institution shall report whether the covered loan is subject to the ability-to-repay provisions of Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.43, and whether the covered loan is a qualified mortgage, as described under 12 CFR 1026.43(e) or (f). The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed requirement is appropriate, whether this proposed requirement would result in more useful data, and whether this proposed requirement would impose additional burdens or result in additional challenges that the Bureau has not considered.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, several small entity representatives expressed concerns about a potential requirement to report a covered loan's qualified mortgage status.
Proposed comment 4(a)(38)–1 clarifies that financial institutions may rely on Regulation Z § 1026.43, the related commentary, and appendix Q to part 1026 in determining whether a covered loan is a qualified mortgage. This proposed comment further clarifies that, if a covered loan is subject to Regulation Z § 1026.43, but is not a qualified mortgage pursuant to § 1026.43(e) or (f), § 1003.4(a)(38) requires a financial institution to identify the covered loan as a loan that is not a qualified mortgage. Proposed comment 4(a)(38)–1 also explains that, if a covered loan is not subject to paragraphs (c) through (f) of Regulation Z § 1026.43, § 1003.4(a)(38) requires the financial institution to identify the covered loan as a loan that is not subject to the reporting requirements of § 1026.43. Finally, this proposed comment provides several illustrative examples of the requirements of § 1003.4(a)(38).
The Bureau is also proposing technical requirements related to the completion of the loan application register in appendix A. Proposed instruction 4(a)(38)–1 states that financial institutions should enter on the loan application register whether the covered loan is a qualified mortgage under Regulation Z by entering one of six codes. Proposed instruction 4(a)(38)–2 identifies the applicable codes for a covered loan that is a standard qualified mortgage, a temporary qualified mortgage, a small creditor qualified mortgage, a balloon-payment qualified mortgage, or not a qualified mortgage. Proposed instruction 4(a)(38)–3 identifies the applicable code for an application for a covered loan, and for a covered loan that is not subject to the ability-to-repay requirements of Regulation Z.
Section 1003.4(a)(38) is proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D) of HMDA. Pursuant to section 305(a) of HMDA, the Bureau believes that this proposed requirement is necessary to carry out the purposes of HMDA. By providing information regarding whether a covered loan is a qualified mortgage under Regulation Z, this proposed provision would ensure that the citizens and public officials of the United States are provided with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether depository institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located. Furthermore, qualified mortgage data also would assist public officials, particularly HUD's Federal Housing Administration, in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment.
Currently, neither HMDA nor Regulation C requires a financial institution to report the amount of first draw on a home-equity line of credit or an open-end reverse mortgage.
Both home-equity lines of credit and reverse mortgages represent important segments of the mortgage market that have been associated with problematic practices. Home-equity lines of credit were often used by speculative real estate investors both before and after the financial crisis, and were popular in areas where housing prices increased significantly prior to the collapse of the real estate market.
The Bureau believes that the burden of reporting the amount of the initial draw will be lessened by the fact that financial institutions will already need to record this amount in order to properly service the loan. However, the Bureau recognizes that financial institutions might not store the information in a format readily available for HMDA purposes. Home-equity lines of credit, for example, tend to run on a different platform than traditional, closed-end mortgage loans. Despite the potential increased burden described above, feedback received pursuant to the Bureau's outreach activities indicates that reporting of the initial draw may be justified. Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under sections 305(a) and 304(b)(5)(D) of HMDA, the Bureau is proposing § 1003.4(a)(39), which provides that a financial institution shall report, for a home-equity line of credit and an open-end reverse mortgage, the amount of the draw on the covered loan, if any, made at account opening. The Bureau believes that this proposed requirement is necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. This proposed revision would provide a more complete picture of the home mortgage market and help the public and public officials compare the
Proposed instruction 4(a)(39) in appendix A provides technical instructions regarding how to enter the data on the loan application register. Proposed instruction 4(a)(39)–1 provides that a financial institution must enter in dollars the amount of any draw on a home-equity line of credit or an open-end reverse mortgage made at the time of account opening.
Section 1003.4(b)(1) of current Regulation C requires that a financial institution collect data about the ethnicity, race, and sex of the applicant or borrower as prescribed in appendix B. Section 1003.4(b)(2) provides that the ethnicity, race, sex, and income of an applicant or borrower may but need not be collected for loans purchased by the financial institution. The Bureau proposes to add age to § 1003.4(b)(1) and (b)(2), and proposes to amend § 1003.4(b)(1) by requiring a financial institution to collect data about the ethnicity, race, sex, and age of the applicant or borrower as prescribed in both appendices A and B. The Bureau also is proposing minor wording changes to § 1003.4(b)(1) and (b)(2).
As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(10), the Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA section 304(b)(4) to require financial institutions to report an applicant's or borrower's age.
As discussed above, § 1003.4(b)(2) provides that ethnicity, race, sex, and income data may but need not be collected for loans purchased by a financial institution. Instruction I.D.1.a of appendix A provides that a financial institution need not collect or report this applicant and borrower information for loans purchased and if an institution chooses not to report this information, it should use the Codes for “not applicable.” While the proposed reporting requirements do not require reporting of ethnicity, race, sex, age, and income for loans purchased by a financial institution, the Bureau solicits feedback on whether this exclusion is appropriate. In particular, the Bureau specifically solicits feedback on the general utility of ethnicity, race, sex, age, and income data on purchased loans and on the unique costs and burdens associated with collecting and reporting the data that financial institutions may face if the reporting requirement were modified to no longer permit optional reporting but instead require reporting of this applicant and borrower information for purchased loans.
Current § 1003.4(c)(1) provides that a financial institution may report the reasons it denied a loan application but is not required to do so. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.4(a)(16), the Bureau is proposing to make reporting of denial reasons mandatory instead of optional. To conform to that proposed requirement, the Bureau is proposing to delete § 1003.4(c)(1).
Section 1003.4(c)(2) provides that institutions may report requests for preapprovals that are approved by the institution but not accepted by the applicant, but they are not required to do so. The Bureau is proposing to make reporting of requests for preapprovals approved by the financial institution but not accepted by the applicant mandatory instead of optional.
The Board published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in 1998 which solicited feedback about reporting of preapprovals.
The Bureau believes that reporting of preapprovals approved by the financial institution but not accepted by the applicant provides context for denials of preapproval requests, and improves fair lending analysis because it allows denials to be compared to a more complete set of approved preapproval requests. Combining originated loans and loans approved but not accepted for purposes of comparison with denied applications is common in fair lending analysis for other home purchase applications. However, such analysis is
Analysis of the currently reported preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted highlights the importance of these data. Over half of all reported home purchase applications in the 2012 HMDA data (excluding loans purchased by a financial institution) were received by financial institutions that offer preapproval programs. Approximately 14 percent of reported preapproval requests were approved but not accepted. For all home purchase applications (excluding loans purchased by a financial institution), approximately 5 percent were approved but not accepted. Because the 14 percent represents only institutions that chose to report preapproval requests approved but not accepted, the percentage if the proposal were adopted would likely be higher. For certain institutions with large preapproval programs, the percentage of preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted is much higher, including above 50 percent for some institutions. For all home purchase applications (excluding loans purchased by a financial institution and not including preapproval requests), approximately 2 percent were closed for incompleteness and 9 percent were withdrawn, similar to the percentages from the 2000 HMDA data. Preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted thus occur more frequently than other applications for home purchases that are approved but not accepted and represent an important element of HMDA data.
Therefore, the Bureau is proposing to make reporting of requests for preapprovals approved by the financial institution but not accepted by the applicant mandatory instead of optional. Consequently, the Bureau is proposing to delete current § 1003.4(c)(2) and, as noted above, to revise § 1003.4(a) accordingly. The Bureau believes that this change will not represent any additional burden for institutions that currently choose to report such preapprovals, and that the burden may not be great for institutions that currently do not choose to report such preapprovals because of information that such institutions currently collect about all of their preapproval requests before the outcome of the request is known. However, the Bureau solicits feedback about whether financial institutions expect significant burden associated with the proposed change.
Section 1003.4(c)(3) of Regulation C currently provides that a financial institution may report, but is not required to report, home-equity lines of credit made in whole or in part for the purpose of home improvement or home purchase. As discussed in the section-by-section analysis to § 1003.2(o), the Bureau is proposing to require reporting of open-end lines of credit, which include home-equity lines of credit. To conform to that proposed modification, the Bureau proposes to delete § 1003.4(c)(3). The Bureau also proposes to delete comment 4(c)(3)–1, which currently provides that an institution that opts to report home-equity lines reports the disposition of all applications, not just originations. The Bureau solicits feedback regarding whether this proposed modification is appropriate.
For the reasons discussed above in the section-by-section analysis of proposed § 1003.3(c), the Bureau proposes to move the discussion of excluded data to proposed § 1003.3(c). Accordingly, the Bureau proposes to reserve § 1003.4(d).
As part of the effort to streamline Regulation C, the Bureau proposes to move the data recording requirement in § 1003.4(a) to proposed § 1003.4(f) and to make technical modifications to the requirement. Proposed § 1003.4(f) provides that a financial institution shall
HMDA section 304(h)(1) provides that a financial institution shall submit its HMDA data to the Bureau or to the appropriate agency for the institution in accordance with rules prescribed by the Bureau.
Section 1003.5(a)(1) of Regulation C requires that, by March 1 following the calendar year for which data are compiled, a financial institution must submit its complete loan application register to the agency specified in appendix A. Section 1003.5(a)(1) also provides that a financial institution shall retain a copy of its complete loan application register for its records for at least three years. Section II of appendix A to Regulation C provides information concerning where financial institutions should submit their complete loan application registers. Additional information concerning submission of the loan application register is found in comments 4(a)–1.vi and –1.vii, 5(a)–1 and –2, and 5(a)–5 through –8. Comment 5(a)–2 provides that a financial institution that reports 25 or fewer entries on its loan application register may submit the register in paper form. For the reasons described below, the Bureau is proposing several changes to § 1003.5(a)(1).
The Bureau is proposing that a financial institution with a high transaction volume report its HMDA data to the Bureau or appropriate agency on a quarterly, rather than an annual, basis. This proposal is based on considerations relating to the timeliness of HMDA data submitted, the quality of the data submitted, and the Bureau's desire to make annual HMDA data available to the public earlier than they are currently made available.
Under the current regime, HMDA data may be reported as many as 14 months after final action is taken on an
Further, as quarterly reporting requires financial institutions with larger transaction volumes to review and edit smaller batches of reportable data several times throughout the year, the Bureau believes that quarterly reporting would facilitate and enhance compliance with HMDA, reduce reporting errors, and improve the quality of HMDA data. Finally, because quarterly reporting would permit the Bureau to process HMDA data throughout the year, the Bureau believes the proposal may allow for the earlier annual release to the public of HMDA data. The HMDA data are currently made public by the FFIEC in September of each year, up to 20 months after final action is taken on applications and loans reflected in the data. HMDA data users have complained to the Bureau, and to the Board before it, that this delay reduces the usefulness of the data to the public. Although the Bureau currently does not anticipate that HMDA data would be released to the public more frequently than annually,
Based on these considerations, the Bureau believes that it may be appropriate to require certain financial institutions to report their HMDA data on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) requires that, within 60 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, a financial institution that reported at least 75,000 covered loans, applications, and purchased covered loans, combined, for the preceding calendar year (the 75,000 transaction threshold) shall submit its loan application register containing all data required to be recorded pursuant to § 1003.4(f).
To the extent there are cost increases, the Bureau seeks to balance those costs with the benefits of quarterly reporting described above. The Bureau's proposal limits the imposition of any increased costs to those institutions with the largest transaction volumes, thus minimizing the number of financial institutions subject to the proposed requirement while maximizing the volume of data reported on a quarterly basis. The Bureau believes that realizing the benefits of more timely data submission requires that the agencies receive sufficient data to perform meaningful analyses. Further, the Bureau believes that, the larger the volume of data submitted and processed during the course of the calendar year, the more likely HMDA data could be released to the public earlier the following year than is currently the case. Based on 2012 HMDA data, the 75,000 transaction threshold proposed would have required 28 financial institutions to report on a quarterly basis in 2013. In 2012, these 28 institutions reported approximately 50 percent of all transactions reported under HMDA. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the proposed 75,000 transaction threshold is justified by the benefits of quarterly reporting.
The Bureau's proposal requires that HMDA data submitted on a quarterly basis be submitted within 60 days after the end of the calendar quarter in which final action is taken (such as origination or purchase of a covered loan, or denial or withdrawal of an application). Financial institutions currently
As proposed, § 1003.5(a)(1) allows for a delay in the effective date of the proposed quarterly reporting provision. The Bureau has left the effective date blank in proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), but is considering a delay of at least one year from the effective date of the other amendments to Regulation C proposed herein. The Bureau solicits feedback on the length of time beyond the effective date of the other proposed amendments to Regulation C, if any, that financial institutions would require to develop and implement the systems, policies, and procedures required to report HMDA data on a quarterly basis.
The Bureau is proposing new comment 5(a)–1 to illustrate coverage under proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii). The Bureau is proposing conforming modifications to comment 5(a)–2 to clarify when, if the appropriate Federal agency for a financial institution reporting on a quarterly basis changes, the financial institution would report to the new agency. The Bureau is proposing new comment 5(a)–5 to clarify that, for purposes of the proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) requirement that a financial institution that reports on a quarterly basis must retain a copy of its complete loan application register for its records for at least three years, the complete loan application register is the loan application register reflecting all data reported for the preceding calendar year. The comment explains that a financial institution that reports data on a quarterly basis may satisfy the retention requirement in § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) by retaining the data
Comment 5(a)–2 provides that a financial institution that reports 25 or fewer entries on its loan application register may submit the register in paper, rather than electronic, format. The Bureau understands that, in recent years, very few financial institutions have submitted their loan application registers in paper format. The FFIEC provides the HMDA Data Entry Software (DES) at no cost to institutions, and the Bureau understands that the vast majority of financial institutions with small transaction volumes take advantage of this free tool to compile and securely submit their HMDA data to the appropriate agencies. Loan application registers that are submitted on paper must be manually input by the processor into its system, requiring the processor to duplicate the work of the financial institution, in order for the data to be used by the agencies and included in the HMDA data products later prepared.
The Bureau notes that, if its proposal to exclude from the definition of financial institution any institution that originated less than 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, is adopted,
Based on these considerations, the Bureau believes that preserving an option to permit the submission of loan application registers in paper format is no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to delete comment 5(a)–2, which allows a financial institution that reports 25 or fewer entries on its loan application register to submit the register in paper form, and to clarify in § 1003.5(a)(1) that the register must be submitted in electronic format. The Bureau solicits comment on this proposal, including concerning any additional costs it imposes upon small-volume financial institutions.
Section 1003.5(a)(1) requires that a financial institution shall retain a copy of its complete loan application register for three years, but Regulation C is silent concerning the formats in which the complete loan application register may be retained. During the Small Business Review Panel process, the Bureau learned that some financial institutions have interpreted § 1003.5(a)(1) to require that complete loan application registers must be retained in paper format, and that this can be burdensome depending on the size of the complete loan application register. Proposed comment 5(a)–4 clarifies that retention of the loan application register in electronic format is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 1003.5(a)(1). The Bureau seeks comment on whether this proposal is appropriate.
As part of its efforts to improve and modernize HMDA operations, the Bureau is considering various improvements to the HMDA data submission process. The Bureau is proposing to reorganize sections I and II of appendix A and portions of the commentary so that instructions relating to data submission are found in one place in the regulation. The Bureau expects to publish procedural and technical requirements and specifications relating to data submission separately from this proposal.
The content of section II of appendix A and comment 5(a)–1 are inconsistent with the Bureau's plan for data submission and the Bureau therefore proposes to delete these provisions. The Bureau proposes to move the portion of comment 4(a)–1.vi concerning officer certification to § 1003.5(a)(1)(iii). The Bureau proposes to incorporate the pertinent remaining portion of comment 4(a)–1.vi and comments 4(a)–1.vii and 5(a)–7 and –8 into proposed instructions 5(a)–2 and –3 in appendix A. The Bureau proposes to delete the remaining portions of these comments. Proposed instruction 5(a)–1 in appendix A provides procedural and technical information concerning submission requirements. When the Bureau finalizes this proposed rule, it will make conforming technical changes to the transmittal sheet and loan application register form in appendix A. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether these proposals are appropriate.
Currently the transmittal sheet and loan application register in appendix A to Regulation C require entry of the Reporter's Identification Number (HMDA RID). The HMDA RID consists of an entity identifier specified by the financial institution's appropriate agency combined with a code that designates the agency. For the reasons discussed below, pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau is proposing to require financial institutions to provide a globally-accepted Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) to replace the HMDA RID in HMDA submissions.
Under the current system, each Federal agency chooses the entity identifier that its financial institutions use in reporting their HMDA data. The following entity identifiers are currently used in generating the HMDA RID:
• The Research Statistics Supervision and Discount (RSSD) number for institutions supervised by the Board and for depository institutions supervised by the Bureau;
• the Federal Tax Identification number for nondepository institutions supervised by agencies other than the Board;
• the charter number for depository institutions supervised by the NCUA and the OCC; and
• the certificate number for depository institutions supervised by the FDIC.
Leading zeroes are added to the extent necessary to make this entity identifier ten digits for purposes of the transmittal sheet and loan application register, and the identifier is then amalgamated with a one-digit code at the end that identifies the agency.
There is no mechanism to link nondepository institutions identified by a Federal Tax Identification number to related companies. The lack of a sufficiently comprehensive
Requiring financial institutions to provide an LEI when they report their HMDA data could help to address these concerns. The LEI is a unique, 20-digit alphanumeric identifier associated with a single legal entity and is intended to serve as a uniform international standard for identifying participants in financial transactions. The LEI's alphanumeric identifier does not itself contain any embedded information about the entity but is linked to reference data about the entity. Once the LEI is fully implemented, this information is projected to include data on ownership and corporate hierarchies.
A global LEI standard is currently in the implementation stage, with strong support from the Financial Stability Board,
The second tier in LEI governance—the Global LEI Foundation (GLEIF)—was recently established as a not-for-profit foundation in Switzerland.
The ROC has already endorsed more than a dozen pre-LOUs around the world, and the LEI identifiers issued by these pre-LOUs have been accepted for regulatory purposes in various jurisdictions represented in the ROC.
In light of the potential benefits that a robust and uniform entity identifier could provide, the Bureau is proposing to add new § 1003.5(a)(3) to require financial institutions to provide an LEI when reporting HMDA data. Proposed § 1003.5(a)(3) specifies that the LEI must be issued by: (i) A utility endorsed by the ROC or (ii) a utility endorsed or otherwise governed by the GLEIF (or any successor of the GLEIF) after the GLEIF assumes operational governance of the global LEI system.
The Bureau believes that requiring use of the LEI could improve the ability to identify the legal entity that is reporting data and to link it to its corporate family. For these reasons, pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau believes that proposed § 1003.5(a)(3) is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes and facilitate compliance therewith. By facilitating identification, the Bureau's proposal would help data users in achieving HMDA's objectives of identifying whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, as well as identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns. This new requirement could also assist in identifying market activity and risks by related companies.
The Bureau recognizes that requiring financial institutions to obtain LEIs would impose some costs on the financial institutions. The LEI system is based on a cost-recovery model.
In light of all these considerations, the Bureau believes that the benefits of having all HMDA reporters obtain and report an LEI may justify the associated costs. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether the LEI would be a more appropriate entity identifier than the HMDA RID. The Bureau is also seeking feedback regarding whether other identifiers, such as the RSSD number
The transmittal sheet in appendix A to Regulation C currently requires financial institutions to provide the name of their parent company, if any. Because information about parent companies is not yet available through the LEI, the Bureau believes it is necessary to maintain this requirement to ensure that financial institutions' submissions can be linked with those of their corporate parents. The Bureau is therefore proposing new § 1003.5(a)(4), which provides that when reporting its
Under Regulation C as originally promulgated, the disclosure statement was the means by which financial institutions made available to the public the aggregate data required to be disclosed under HMDA section 304.
HMDA section 304(k) requires the FFIEC to make available a disclosure statement for each financial institution required to make disclosures under HMDA section 304.
The Bureau proposes to modify § 1003.5(b)(1) to clarify that, although some financial institutions will report quarterly under proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii), disclosure statements for these financial institutions will be based on all data submitted by each institution for the preceding calendar year. The Bureau also proposes to replace the word “prepare” with “make available” in § 1003.5(b)(1). The Bureau believes that advances in technology may permit, for example, the FFIEC to produce an online tool that would allow users of the tool to generate disclosure statements. It is the Bureau's interpretation that the FFIEC's obligation under HMDA section 304(k) would be satisfied if the FFIEC produced such a tool, which in turn would produce disclosure statements upon request. The Bureau proposes to modify the language in § 1003.5(b)(1) to clarify that such developments are accommodated by this section. Further, pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau believes that permitting the FFIEC to produce a tool that allows members of the public to generate disclosure statements is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and to facilitate compliance therewith. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether these proposals are appropriate.
HMDA section 304(k)(1) requires that, in accordance with procedures established by the Bureau, a financial institution shall make its disclosure statement available to the public upon request no later than three business days after it receives the statement from the FFIEC. HMDA section 304(m), titled “Opportunity to reduce compliance burden,” provides that a financial institution shall be deemed to have satisfied the public availability requirements of section 304(a) if it compiles the information required at the home office of the institution and provides notice at the branch locations specified in HMDA section 304(a) that such information is available from the home office upon written request. The Bureau is given broad discretion as to the media and format in which disclosure statements are made available and the procedures for disclosing them.
Section 1003.5(b)(2) of Regulation C requires that each financial institution make its disclosure statement available to the public in its home office within three business days of receiving it. In addition, § 1003.5(b)(3) requires that a financial institution must either (1) make the statement available to the public in at least one branch office in each other MSA and each other MD where the institution has offices or (2) post the address for sending written requests for the disclosure statement in the lobby of each branch office in each other MSA and each other MD and provide a copy of the disclosure statement within 15 calendar days of receiving a written request. Comment 5(b)–2 provides that an institution may make the disclosure statement available in paper form or, if the person requesting the data agrees, in electronic form. For the reasons described below, the Bureau is proposing to allow a financial institution to make its disclosure statement available to the public by making available a notice that clearly conveys that the disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address.
The current disclosure statement for each reporting financial institution is comprised of a series of numerous tables that are prepared using the HMDA data submitted by the financial institution for the previous calendar year. The Bureau has received feedback from financial institutions that the largest disclosure statements can exceed 4,000 pages. The FFIEC posts the disclosure statements to the FFIEC Web site in September each year and, after receiving notice that the statements are available on the FFIEC Web site, financial institutions download or print the statements from the Web site so as to have them available for members of the public. The Bureau has received feedback from financial institutions that having to print and download the disclosure statements so as to make them available is burdensome and often wasteful, as disclosure statements are infrequently requested. Financial institutions have argued that, because the source of the disclosure statements—the FFIEC Web site—is readily available and easily accessible to the public at no cost, institutions should be permitted to direct members of the public who request disclosure statements to the FFIEC Web site. During the Small Business Review Panel process, the Bureau heard from small entity representatives that they rarely if ever receive requests for their disclosure statements and that making them available as currently required can be burdensome. The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau consider whether there may be alternative means of providing disclosure statements to the public.
The Bureau believes that costs to financial institutions would be reduced by allowing institutions to refer members of the public who request disclosure statements to the FFIEC Web site. The Bureau has considered whether the provision to the public of disclosure statements in paper or electronic form by the financial institution itself confers any unique
The Bureau believes that the burden to financial institutions associated with the provision of disclosure statements to members of the public upon request is likely not justified by any benefit to maintaining the current disclosure statement dissemination scheme. For these reasons, the Bureau believes it is reasonable to deem that financial institutions make disclosure statements available, pursuant to HMDA sections 304(k)(1) and 304(m), by referring members of the public seeking disclosure statements to the FFIEC Web site, as provided under proposed § 1003.5(b)(2). This proposal is also proposed pursuant to the Bureau's authority under HMDA 305(a). For the reasons given, this proposal is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and facilitate compliance therewith.
Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing that, no later than three business days after receiving notice that its disclosure statement is available, a financial institution shall make available to the public at its home office and each branch office located in each MSA and each MD a notice that clearly conveys that the institution's disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address.
The Bureau also proposes to modify comment 5(b)–2 to conform to proposed § 1003.5(b)(2) and to allow a financial institution to provide the proposed notice in paper or electronic form. Comment 5(b)–2 requires that an institution may make its disclosure statement available in electronic form to a person requesting it only if the person agrees. This comment implements a requirement previously found in HMDA section 304(m)(2), which provided that, in complying with its obligation to make its HMDA data available to the public as required by section 304(m)(1), an institution could provide the information in electronic form only “if acceptable to the person” requesting the information. The Dodd-Frank Act amended HMDA section 304(m)(2) to substitute this language with new language providing that, in complying with section 304(m)(1), a financial institution “shall provide the person requesting the information with a copy of the information requested in such formats as the Bureau may require.”
HMDA section 304(j)(1) requires that financial institutions make available to the public, upon request, “loan application register information” as defined by the Bureau and in the form required under regulations prescribed by the Bureau. HMDA section 304(j)(2) provides that the Bureau shall require such deletions from the loan application register information made available to the public as the Bureau may determine to be appropriate to protect any privacy interest of any applicant and to protect financial institutions from liability under any Federal or State privacy law, and identifies three fields in particular as appropriate for deletion.
Section 1003.5(c) of Regulation C requires a financial institution to make its loan application register available to the public after removing three fields to protect applicant and borrower privacy: The application or loan number, the date that the application was received, and the date action was taken. An institution must make this “modified” loan application register publicly available following the calendar year for which the data are compiled by, March 31 for a request received on or before March 1, and within 30 calendar days for a request received after March 1. The modified loan application register need only contain data relating to the MSA or MD for which the request is made. Comment 5(c)–1 explains that a financial institution may make the modified loan application register
For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.5(c) to require that a financial institution make available to the public a modified loan application register showing only the data fields that currently are released on the modified loan application register. The Bureau is proposing new comment 5(c)–3 to clarify that a modified loan application register made available to the public by a financial institution that reports its HMDA data on a quarterly basis under proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) must show data for the entire calendar year. The Bureau seeks comment on whether it should except smaller financial institutions from the obligation to release a modified loan application register.
As discussed above in part II.C, the Bureau's assessment under its balancing test of the risks to privacy interests created by the disclosure of HMDA data and the benefits of such disclosure is ongoing. Based on its analysis thus far, however, the Bureau believes that some of the new data points required or permitted by the Dodd-Frank Act and proposed by the Bureau may raise privacy concerns sufficient to warrant some degree of modification, including redaction, before they are disclosed to the public. This has two implications for the future release of loan-level HMDA data.
Second, the Bureau believes that any privacy risks created by the disclosure of loan-level HMDA data may evolve over time. For example, technological developments in areas such as data aggregation and mining and the availability of new public sources of data may increase, decrease, or otherwise alter the likelihood and nature of potential privacy harms that could result from the public disclosure of loan-level HMDA data. Evolving privacy risks may warrant changes to the privacy protections applied to HMDA data disclosed to the public. Changing the modifications a financial institution must make to the modified loan application register in order to protect applicant and borrower privacy interests would require amendments to Regulation C that may impose undue costs on financial institutions and delay the implementation of the changes.
Based on these considerations,
The Bureau has concerns about the impact such a proposal may have on members of the public that regularly use modified loan application registers. Although the Bureau has received feedback that requests for modified loan applications registers are infrequently received at many institutions, the Bureau believes that a small number of HMDA data users routinely request modified loan application registers from large financial institutions. The Bureau understands that this practice is driven primarily by the timing of the agencies' data release: Whereas a financial institution must make available its modified loan application register as early as March 31, the agencies' loan-level HMDA data currently are not released until almost six months later, in September. The Bureau notes that it intends to coordinate with the other agencies to explore processing improvements that may allow the agencies' data release to be made available to the public, in the future, closer to March 31 than is the current practice.
For the reasons described above, the Bureau is proposing to modify § 1003.5(c) to provide that a financial institution shall make its loan application register available to the public after, for each entry: Removing the information required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(1), the date required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(8), the postal address required to be reported under proposed § 1003.4(a)(9), the age of the applicant or borrower required to be reported under proposed § 1003.4(a)(10), and the information required to be reported under proposed § 1003.4(a)(15) and (a)(17) through (39); and rounding the information required to be reported under proposed § 1003.4(a)(7) to the nearest thousand.
The Bureau is aware that concerns have been raised that data currently disclosed on the modified loan application register may create risks to borrower and applicant privacy.
Proposed comment 5(c)–3 clarifies that the modified loan application register is the loan application register reflecting all data reported for a calendar year, modified as described in § 1003.5(c)(1), whether the data were submitted on a quarterly or annual basis. Financial institutions that report on a quarterly basis under proposed § 1003.5(a)(1)(ii) must show on their modified loan application register data reported for the calendar year, not just data reported for a particular quarter.
The Bureau seeks comment on whether it should except, pursuant to its authority under HMDA section 305(a), smaller financial institutions from the requirement under § 1003.5(c) that a financial institution make available to the public its modified loan application register. During the Small Business Review Panel process, the Bureau heard from small entity representatives that they rarely if ever receive requests for their modified loan application registers. The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau consider whether there is a continued need for small financial institutions to make their modified loan application registers available to the public.
HMDA sections 304(c) and 304(j)(6) set forth the time periods for which financial institutions must maintain and make available information required to be disclosed under the statute. HMDA sections 304(j)(4) and 304(k)(3) permit a financial institution that provides its loan application register information or its disclosure statement to a member of the public to impose a reasonable fee for any cost incurred in reproducing the information or statement. Section 1003.5(d) of Regulation C requires that a financial institution must make its modified loan application register available to the public for a period of three years and its disclosure statement available to the public for a period of five years. This section also provides that an institution must make these disclosures available to the public for inspection and copying during the hours the office is normally open to the public for business and may impose a reasonable fee for any cost incurred in providing or reproducing the data. The Bureau is proposing to delete the requirement that a financial institution make its HMDA data available for inspection and copying and to make additional technical modifications to § 1003.5(d).
Section 1003.5(d) requires that an institution shall make its data available for inspection and copying during the hours the office is normally open to the public. This language suggests that a member of the public seeking a financial institution's disclosure statement or modified loan application register could require the financial institution to permit him to reproduce these documents himself at the financial institution's office. The Bureau believes that preserving this option is unnecessary and may be burdensome to financial institutions. The Bureau proposes to modify § 1003.5(d) to delete reference to inspection and copying and seeks comment on whether this proposed modification is appropriate.
HMDA section 304(m) provides that a financial institution shall be deemed to have satisfied the public availability requirements of HMDA section 304(a) if it compiles its HMDA data at its home office and provides notice at certain branch locations that its information is available upon written request. Section 1003.5(e) of Regulation C requires that a financial institution post a notice concerning the availability of its HMDA data in the lobby of its home office and of each branch office located in an MSA and MD. Section 1003.5(e) also requires that a financial institution must provide, or the posted notice must include, the location of the institution's office where its disclosure statement is available for inspection and copying. Comment 5(e)–1 suggests text for the posted notice required under § 1003.5(e). Comment 5(e)–2 suggests text concerning disclosure statements that may be included in the posted notice to satisfy § 1003.5(b)(3)(ii). The Bureau is proposing conforming, clarifying, and technical modifications to § 1003.5(e).
Under proposed § 1003.5(b)(2), a financial institution shall make its disclosure statement available to the public by making available at its home office and at each branch office located in each MSA and each MD a notice that clearly conveys that the institution's disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address. If this proposal is adopted, a financial institution's disclosure statement would be available online and the notice advising of this fact would be available in every branch office located in an
The Bureau is also proposing to clarify that the notice required under § 1003.5(e) must be posted in a financial institution's home office and in each branch office located in an MSA or MD. Finally, the Bureau is proposing to make minor technical modifications to comment 5(e)–1. These include adding language to the suggested content for the notice required under § 1003.5(e) to highlight that HMDA data include the age of applicants and borrowers and to provide additional information about the online availability of HMDA data. The Bureau solicits feedback on whether these changes are appropriate.
HMDA section 310 requires the FFIEC to compile aggregate data by census tract for all financial institutions reporting under HMDA and to produce tables indicating aggregate lending patterns for various categories of census tracts grouped according to location, age of housing stock, income level, and racial characteristics. HMDA section 304(f) requires the FFIEC to implement a system to facilitate access to data required to be disclosed under HMDA section 304, including arrangements for central depositories where such data are made available for inspection and copying. Section 1003.5(f) of Regulation C provides that the FFIEC will produce reports for individual institutions and reports of aggregate data for each MSA and MD, showing lending patterns by property location, age of housing stock, and income level, sex, ethnicity, and race, and will make these reports available at central depositories. Section 1003.5(f) also contains information concerning how to obtain a list of central depositories from the FFIEC. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is proposing two modifications to § 1003.5(f).
The Bureau understands that the FFIEC has not made HMDA data available at brick-and-mortar central depositories since approximately the mid-2000s. Instead, since at least the early 2000s, the FFIEC has made data required to be disclosed under HMDA, including the data required under HMDA section 310, readily available at no cost to the public on its Web site. The Bureau concludes that sole reliance on the FFIEC Web site to publish HMDA data satisfies HMDA section 304(f). The Web site provides a single, convenient place for public officials and members of the public to inspect and copy all public HMDA data, and thus qualifies as a central depository: Access is available through any computer with internet connectivity, and the Web site constitutes an effective system for facilitating access to HMDA data. The Bureau also concludes, pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), that this means of providing access to HMDA data is necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes and facilitate compliance therewith. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to delete reference to central depositories in § 1003.5(f) and to instead explicitly reference the data's availability on the FFIEC Web site, to conform to current practices.
The Bureau also proposes to replace the word “produce” with “make available” in § 1003.5(f) for clarity. The Bureau believes that advances in technology may permit, for example, the FFIEC to produce an online tool, such as a tabular engine, that would allow public officials and members of the public to generate the tables described in HMDA section 310. It is the Bureau's interpretation that the obligation to “produce tables” set forth in HMDA section 310 would be satisfied if the FFIEC produced such a tool, which in turn would produce the tables described in HMDA section 310 on request. The Bureau proposes to modify the language in § 1003.5(f) to clarify that such developments are accommodated by this section. Further, pursuant to HMDA section 305(a), the Bureau believes that permitting the FFIEC to produce a tool that allows members of the public to generate tables described in HMDA section 310 is necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of HMDA and facilitate compliance therewith.
The Bureau solicits feedback on whether these proposed modifications to § 1003.5(f) are appropriate.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives raised concerns regarding reporting errors. Small entity representatives expressed concern that adoption of any new data points would make financial institutions more vulnerable to being cited in examinations for reporting errors that they consider minor, but in total exceed their supervisory agencies' tolerances for reporting accurate HMDA information.
Section 1003.6(b) of Regulation C provides that an error in compiling and recording loan data is not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C if the error was unintentional and occurred despite the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors; that census tract reporting errors are not violations if an institution maintains procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors; and that, if an institution makes a good faith effort to record all data concerning covered transactions fully and accurately within thirty calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, and some data are nevertheless inaccurate or incomplete, the error or omission is not a violation of HMDA or Regulation C provided that the institution corrects or completes the information prior to submitting the loan application register to its regulatory agency. The Bureau is not proposing specific changes to § 1003.6(b). However, the Bureau is concerned about the issues related to errors raised by the small entity representatives. The Bureau is seeking feedback generally regarding whether, in light of the new proposed reporting requirements, it would be appropriate to add new provisions to § 1003.6 to clarify compliance expectations and address compliance burdens or operational challenges. The Bureau is seeking feedback on whether a more precise definition of what constitutes an error would be helpful, whether there are ways to improve the current methods of calculating error rates, and whether tolerance levels for error rates would be appropriate.
The Bureau is considering the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule.
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere throughout this supplementary information, in this rulemaking, the Bureau is proposing to amend Regulation C, which implements HMDA, and the official commentary to the regulation, as part of the Bureau's implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA regarding the reporting and disclosure of mortgage loan information. The proposed amendments to Regulation C implement section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which made certain amendments to HMDA.
In addition, the proposal includes additional amendments to Regulation C to implement the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions permitting reporting of, as the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, a unique identifier that identifies the loan originator, a universal loan identifier, and the parcel number that corresponds to the real property pledged or proposed to be pledged as collateral. The proposed rule would also require financial institutions to report additional information pursuant to authority under sections 304(b)(5)(D) and 304(b)(6)(J) of HMDA, which permit the disclosure of such other information as the Bureau may require, and section 305(a) of HMDA, which, among other things, broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. Certain additional data points included in the proposed rule are not specifically identified by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA.
The proposed rule would also modify the regulation's institutional and transactional coverage by, among other things, requiring financial institutions to report activity only for dwelling-secured loans, regardless of whether the loans are for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing; adjusting the institutional coverage to adopt a uniform loan-volume threshold of 25 loans applicable to all financial institutions; and requiring financial institutions to report data on applications and accounts opened for home-equity lines of credit.
Furthermore, the Bureau is proposing to modify the frequency of reporting for certain financial institutions with large numbers of transactions, modify the requirements regarding the disclosure statement, and specify the form required for the loan application register information that HMDA reporters must make available to the public. Financial institutions that reported at least 75,000 covered loans, applications, and purchased covered loans, combined, for the preceding calendar year, would be required to report data quarterly to the Bureau or to the appropriate Federal agency. Financial institutions would be permitted to make their disclosure statements available to the public by providing, upon request, a notice that clearly conveys that the disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the Web site address. Under the proposed regulation, financial institutions would make available to the public a modified loan application register showing only the data fields that are currently released on the modified loan application register.
The Bureau is also separately considering several operational improvements designed to reduce the burden associated with reporting HMDA data. The Bureau is considering restructuring the geocoding process, creating an improved web-based HMDA Data Entry Software (DES), and otherwise streamlining the submission and editing process to make it more efficient. The Bureau is also proposing to align the HMDA data requirements with the widely-used MISMO data standards for residential mortgages to the extent practicable.
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this supplementary information, HMDA requires lenders located in metropolitan areas to report data about their housing-related lending activity. In 2010, Congress responded to the mortgage crisis with the Dodd-Frank Act, which enacted changes to HMDA and directed reforms to the mortgage market and the broader financial system. In addition to transferring rulemaking authority for HMDA from the Board to the Bureau, the Dodd-Frank Act directed the Bureau to implement changes requiring the collection and reporting of several new data points and such other information as the Bureau may require. In doing so, Congress sought to ensure that HMDA data continue to be useful for determining whether institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, for identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns, and for helping public officials target public investment to
The proposal contains both specific proposed provisions with regulatory or commentary language (proposed provisions) as well as requests for comment on modifications where regulatory or commentary language was not specifically included (additional proposed modifications). The discussion below considers the benefits, costs, and impacts of the following major proposed provisions and the additional proposed modifications:
1. The scope of the institutional coverage of the proposed rule.
2. The scope of the transactional coverage of the proposed rule.
3. The data that financial institutions are required to report about each loan or application.
4. The proposed modifications to disclosure and reporting requirements.
With respect to each major proposed provision, the discussion considers the benefits, costs, and impacts to consumers and covered persons. The discussion also addresses certain alternative provisions that were considered by the Bureau in the development of the proposed rule. The Bureau requests comment on the consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule.
Congress intended HMDA to provide the public and public officials with information to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, to target public investment to attract private investment in communities, and to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. Today, HMDA data are the preeminent data source for regulators, researchers, economists, industry, and advocates analyzing the mortgage market both for the three stated purposes of HMDA and for general market monitoring. For example, HMDA data are used by bank supervisors to evaluate depository institutions for purposes of the CRA; by local groups as the basis for discussions with lenders about local community needs; and by regulators, community groups, and researchers to identify disparities in mortgage lending that may provide evidence of prohibited discrimination. In addition, HMDA data provide a broadly representative, national picture of home lending that is unavailable from any other data source. This information permits users to monitor market conditions and trends, such as the supply and demand of applications and originations. For example, industry uses HMDA data to identify and meet the needs of underserved markets through potentially profitable lending and investment opportunities.
HMDA data include records regarding applications by mortgage borrowers and records regarding the flow of funding from lenders to borrowers. Together, these records form a near-census of the home mortgage market for covered loans and applications, with rich geographical detail (down to census tract level) and identification of the specific financial institution for each transaction. Therefore, HMDA allows users to draw a detailed picture of the supply and demand of mortgage credit at various levels of geography and lender aggregation.
Despite past improvements, however, serious inadequacies exist in the information currently collected under Regulation C. HMDA data can generally be used to calculate underwriting and pricing disparities across various protected classes in mortgage lending, at the national, market, and individual-lender levels. Nevertheless, the data lack key fields that explain legitimate underwriting and pricing decisions for mortgage loans. Therefore, in most cases, HMDA data alone cannot demonstrate whether borrowers and applicants have received nondiscriminatory treatment by financial institutions. Additional proposed data points, such as credit score, AUS recommendations, CLTV, and DTI, would help users understand the reasons for approvals and denials of applications and for pricing decisions regarding originations. Similarly, current HMDA data provide certain information about borrowers (race, ethnicity, sex, income, and location) and loans (loan amount, purpose, loan type, occupancy, lien status, and property type). However, the current data points do not fully characterize the types of loans for which consumers are applying and do not explain why some applications are denied. The additional proposed data points, such as non-amortizing features, prepayment penalties, and loan terms, would help fill these important information gaps.
Additionally, analysis of the cost of credit to mortgage borrowers is incomplete without the inclusion of key pricing information. The current rate spread reporting requirement requires financial institutions to report rate spread only for higher-priced mortgage loans. Currently, such loans comprise less than 5 percent of total originations. These limited data restrict analysis of the cost of credit to a small segment of total mortgage originations and create severe selection bias as changes in the market lead to shifts in the average spreads between APR values and APOR. Adding the proposed pricing data fields, such as discount points, risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate, origination charges, interest rate, and total points and fees, will allow users to better understand the price that consumers pay for mortgages and more effectively analyze the tradeoffs between rates, points, and fees.
HMDA also currently provides limited information about the property that secures or will secure the loan. Despite being one of the most important characteristics for underwriting and pricing decisions, the value of the property securing the loan has not been collected under the current HMDA reporting requirements. The proposed rule would address this deficiency by providing for reporting of the value of the property securing the covered loan or application. Current HMDA data also lack information about the manufactured housing segment of the mortgage market. Manufactured housing is an important source of housing for many borrowers, such as low-income and elderly borrowers, that are often financially fragile and possibly more vulnerable to unfair and predatory practices.
Finally, the transactional coverage criteria omit a large proportion of dwelling-secured loan products, such as home-equity lines of credit. In the lead-up to the financial crisis between 2000 and 2008, the total balance of closed- and open-end home-equity loans increased by approximately 16.8 percent annually, growing from a total of $275.5 billion to $953.5 billion. Recent research has shown that this growth in home-equity lending was correlated with subsequent home price depreciation, as well as high default and foreclosure rates among first mortgages.
Congress recognized the current deficiencies in HMDA, and responded with the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA and provided broader reforms to the financial system. The Dodd-Frank Act's amendments to HMDA require the collection and reporting of several new data points, including information about borrowers (age and credit score), information about loan features and pricing, and, as the Bureau may determine to be appropriate, unique identifiers for loans, properties, and loan originators. It also authorizes the Bureau to require financial institutions to collect and report “such other information as the Bureau may require.”
HMDA does not regulate the interactions between lenders and borrowers. Instead, HMDA requires financial institutions to report detailed information to their Federal supervisory agencies and to the public about mortgage applications and originations at the transaction level. Such information provides an important public good that illuminates the lending activities of financial institutions and the mortgage market in general. This increased transparency allows members of the public, community groups, and public officials to better assess compliance with various Federal laws and regulations. In doing so, HMDA data help correct the potential market failures that those laws and regulations were designed to address.
From the perspective of economics, the proposed improvements to HMDA would address two market failures: (1) The under-production of public mortgage data by the private sector, and (2) the information asymmetries present in credit markets.
First, HMDA data is a public good in that it is both non-rival, meaning that it may be used without reducing the amount available for others, and non-excludable, meaning that it cannot be withheld from consumers who do not pay for it. As with other public goods, standard microeconomic principles dictate that public mortgage data would be under-produced by the private sector, creating an outcome that is not socially optimal. Not surprisingly, no privately produced loan-level mortgage databases with comprehensive national coverage exist that are easily accessible by the public. Private data vendors offer a few large databases for sale that typically contain data collected from either the largest servicers or securitizers. However, none of these databases match the near-universal coverage of the HMDA data.
Second, it is well-accepted that credit markets are characterized by information asymmetries. Mortgage products and transactions are highly complex, and lenders have a significant information advantage. Such information asymmetry affects price and quantity allocations and can contribute to types of lender behavior, such as discrimination or predatory lending, that conflict with the best interests of consumers. In addition to disadvantaging individual consumers, information failure may also lead to herding behavior by both lenders and consumers, creating substantial systemic risk to the mortgage market and the nation's overall financial system. The recent mortgage crisis provides a vivid demonstration of such a threat to the overall safety and stability of the housing market.
These market failures are intertwined. Following the financial crisis, the Bureau and other government regulators have attempted to directly address misallocation, enhance consumer protection, and stem systemic risk in the mortgage market through rules that regulate the business practices of financial institutions. In contrast, the proposed rule provides another approach to solving failures in the mortgage market: Correcting the informational market failure. Increased mortgage data would provide greater transparency about the mortgage market, weakening the information advantage that lenders possess relative to borrowers, community groups, and public officials. Greater information enables these groups to advocate that financial institutions adopt fairer practices and increases the prospect that self-correction by financial institutions would be rewarded. Additional information would also help reduce the herding behavior of both lenders and borrowers, reducing the systemic risk that has been so detrimental to the nation. Mandatory sharing of information may lead to more efficient outcomes. Thus, as a public good that reduces information asymmetry in the mortgage market, HMDA data are irreplaceable.
Finally, the proposed rule would meet the compelling public need for improved efficiency in government operations. The new data would allow the government to more effectively assess compliance by financial institutions with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. The new data will also help regulatory agencies assess the performance of certain financial
The Bureau has discretion in any rulemaking to choose an appropriate scope of consideration with respect to potential benefits and costs and an appropriate baseline. The Bureau does not believe the amendments to HMDA in section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act would take effect automatically without implementing rules. Financial institutions are not required to report additional data required by section 304(b)(5) and (6) of HMDA, as amended, “before the first January 1 that occurs after the end of the 9-month period beginning on the date on which regulations are issued by the Bureau in final form with respect to such disclosures.”
Each proposed provision applies to certain financial institutions, and requires these financial institutions to report and disclose data regarding covered loans secured by a dwelling that they originate or purchase, or for which they receive applications, as described further in each section below.
This discussion relies on data that the Bureau has obtained from industry, other regulatory agencies, and publicly available sources. However, as discussed further below, the data limit the Bureau's ability to quantify the potential costs, benefits, and impacts of the proposed rule.
Regarding the costs to covered persons, the proposed rule generally establishes which financial institutions, transactions, and data points are covered under HMDA's reporting requirements. In order to precisely quantify the costs to covered persons, the Bureau would need, for both current and potential HMDA reporters, representative data on the operational costs that financial institutions incur to gather and report HMDA data, one-time costs for financial institutions to update reporting infrastructure in response to the proposed rule, and information on the level of complexity of financial institutions' business models and compliance systems. Currently, the Bureau does not believe that data on HMDA reporting costs with this level of granularity is systematically available from any source. The Bureau has made reasonable efforts to gather data on HMDA reporting costs. Through outreach efforts with industry, community groups, and other regulatory agencies, the Bureau has obtained some information about ongoing operational and one-time compliance costs, and the discussion below uses this information to quantify certain costs of the proposed rule. The Bureau believes that the discussion constitutes the most comprehensive assessment to date of the costs of HMDA reporting by financial institutions. However, the Bureau recognizes that these calculations may not fully quantify the costs to covered persons, especially given the wide variation of HMDA reporting costs among financial institutions. The Bureau continues to seek data from available sources in order to better quantify the costs to covered persons.
More specifically, in considering the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule, the Bureau has engaged in a series of efforts to estimate the cost of compliance by covered entities. First, the Bureau attempted to understand and estimate the current cost of reporting for financial institutions,
The third stage of the Bureau's consideration of costs involved projecting and mapping the total number of potentially impacted financial institutions to the three tiers described above. The Bureau used a wide range of data in conducting this task, including current HMDA data, call reports, and NMLSR data.
Having generated estimates of the cost impact on covered financial institutions, the Bureau attempted to estimate the costs to consumers. According to economic theory, in a perfectly competitive market where financial institutions are profit maximizers, the
Quantifying benefits to consumers also presented substantial challenges. As discussed above, Congress intended for HMDA, including the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Act and the Bureau's rules implementing HMDA, to achieve compelling social benefits. The Bureau is unable to readily quantify some of these benefits with precision, both because the Bureau does not have the data to quantify all benefits and because the Bureau is not able to assess completely how effective the Dodd-Frank amendments to HMDA will be in achieving those benefits. As explained elsewhere in this supplementary information, the Bureau believes that its proposals appropriately implement the statutory amendments and are necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes. As discussed further below, as a data reporting rule, most provisions of the proposal would benefit consumers in indirect ways. Nevertheless, the Bureau believes that the impact of enhanced transparency would substantially benefit consumers. For example, the proposed rule would facilitate the detection and remediation of discrimination; promote public and private investment in certain under-served markets, potentially increasing access to mortgage credit; and promote more stable and competitive markets. Quantifying and monetizing these benefits would require identifying all possible uses of HMDA data, establishing causal links to the resulting public benefits, and then quantifying the magnitude of these benefits. The Bureau continues to seek data from available sources regarding the benefits to consumers of the proposed rule. The Bureau is particularly interested in the quantifiable impact of increased transparency on financial institution behavior, the need for public and private investment, the housing needs of communities, the number of lenders potentially engaging in discriminatory or predatory behavior, and the number of consumers currently being unfairly disadvantaged and the level of quantifiable damage from such disadvantage. The Bureau is unaware of data that would enable reliable quantitative estimates of all of these effects.
Similar issues arise in attempting to quantify the benefits to covered persons. Certain benefits to covered persons are difficult to quantify. For example, the Bureau believes that the enhanced HMDA data will facilitate improved monitoring of the mortgage market in order to prevent major disruptions to the financial system, which in turn would benefit financial institutions over the long run. But such effects are hard to quantify because they are largely related to future events that the proposed changes themselves are designed to prevent from happening. Similarly, the Bureau believes that the enhanced HMDA data will provide a better analytical basis for financial regulators and community groups to screen and monitor lenders for possible discrimination. Because of limitations in the current HMDA data fields, high false positive rates have been widely cited by financial institutions in various HMDA-related fair lending exams, complaints, and lawsuits. The proposed changes would greatly reduce the rate of false positives and therefore reduce the associated compliance burden on financial institutions. The Bureau believes that such benefits to financial institutions could be substantial. Nevertheless, quantifying them would require data that are currently unavailable.
In light of these data limitations, the discussion below generally provides a qualitative consideration of the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. General economic principles, together with the limited data available, provide insight into these benefits, costs, and impacts. Where possible, the Bureau has made quantitative estimates based on these principles and the data that are available. The Bureau seeks comment on the appropriateness of the approach described above, including additional data relevant to the benefits and costs to consumers and covered persons.
In this section, the Bureau presents a concise, high-level overview of the benefits and costs considered in the remainder of the discussion. This overview is not intended to capture all details and nuances that are provided both in the rest of the analysis and in the section-by-section discussion above, but rather to provide an overview of the major benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
Second, the proposal will help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and help public officials target public investment to better attract private investment, two of HMDA's stated purposes. The proposed expansions of institutional and transactional coverage would provide additional data helpful to both industry and government in identifying profitable lending and investment opportunities in underserved communities. Similarly, the proposed data points related to multifamily dwellings and manufactured housing would reveal more information about these segments of the market. Borrowers who seek financing for manufactured housing are typically more financially vulnerable than borrowers financing site-built homes, and may deserve closer attention from government agencies and
Third, the proposed changes would assist in earlier identification of trends in the mortgage market including the cyclical loosening and tightening of credit. Mandatory reporting of additional transactions, such as open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages, as well as additional data fields, such as amortization type, prepayment penalty, and occupancy type, would improve understanding of the types of products and product characteristics received by consumers. Recent research has indicated that certain product types and characteristics may have increased the likelihood of default and exacerbated declines in housing prices during the recent financial crisis. In addition to being able to better identify some of the risk factors that played a role in the recent financial crisis, the additional transactions and data points would improve current research efforts to understand mortgage markets. This research may identify new risk factors that might increase systemic risk to the overall economy. Better understanding of these risk factors could provide early warning signals to the government of worrisome market trends.
Fourth, the proposed changes will improve the effectiveness of policy-making efforts. In response to the recent financial crisis, the government has generated a number of rules and implemented a wide array of public policy measures to address market failures and protect consumers. The additional data being proposed, as well as the proposed coverage and transaction changes, will allow for more informed decisions by policy makers and improve the consideration of benefits, costs, and impacts for future policy efforts, resulting in more effective policy.
Quantifying these benefits is difficult because the size of each particular effect cannot be known in advance. Given the number of mortgage transactions and the size of the mortgage market, however, small changes in behavior can have substantial aggregate effects. The Bureau seeks comments and suggestions on whether such effects can be reliably estimated and possible ways of doing so.
The proposed rule will affect the operational tasks associated with collecting and reporting HMDA data. More time will be required for tasks such as transcribing and checking data, and more resources will need to be devoted to tasks such as internal and external audits. The Bureau estimates that, absent the mitigation efforts discussed below, the addition to ongoing, operational costs borne by covered persons would be approximately $1,600 for a representative low-complexity financial institution; $10,300 for a representative moderate-complexity financial institution; and $27,000 for a representative high-complexity financial institution, per year. For the estimated 28 financial institutions that reported at least 75,000 transactions in the preceding year and would be required to report HMDA data quarterly, the addition to ongoing, operational costs would be approximately $54,000 per year. This would translate into a market-level impact of approximately $18,400,000 to $59,000,000 per year. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value of this impact over five years across the entire market would be an increase in costs of $75,600,000 to $242,000,000.
With operational improvements the Bureau is considering, the net cost increase from the proposal would be smaller than the above estimates. The Bureau's initial outreach efforts, as well as information gathered during the Small Business Review Panel process, indicated that reportability questions, regulatory clarity, geocoding, and submission processes and edits were significant concerns to financial institutions. Along with modifying the reporting requirements, the Bureau is separately considering operational enhancements and modifications to address these concerns. For example,
In addition to impacting ongoing, operational costs, the proposed rule would impose one-time costs necessary to modify processes in response to the proposal. These one-time costs are driven primarily by updating software systems, training staff, updating compliance procedures and manuals, and overall planning and preparation time. The Bureau estimates that these one-time costs would be approximately $3,000 for low-complexity financial institutions, $250,000 for moderate-complexity financial institutions, and $800,000 for high-complexity financial institutions.
These estimates exclude the impact of expanding transactional coverage to include open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages.
The specific estimates of one-time costs are based on the Bureau's outreach efforts. Specifically, for low-complexity financial institutions, these outreach efforts indicated that the cost to update information technology systems would be minimal, because the processes involved in reporting are highly manual. The estimate of one-time training cost is based on estimated ongoing training costs of $300 per year for staff directly responsible for data reporting. In response to the proposed rule, additional staff will require one-time training, but the intensity of this training will be lower than ongoing training. To capture this additional, less-intensive training, the Bureau used five times the annual training cost as the estimated one-time training cost ($1,500). Training costs provide the best-available proxy for the one-time cost to update compliance procedures and manuals, so the Bureau used $1,500 as an estimate of these costs as well. Therefore, the total one-time cost estimate for lower-complexity financial institutions is approximately $3,000 (=0+1,500+1,500). This estimate varies little with or without the inclusion of mandatory reporting of dwelling-secured home-equity products.
For moderate-complexity financial institutions, outreach efforts indicated that representative costs to update information technology would be approximately $225,000. This estimate excludes the impact of expanding transactional coverage to include dwelling-secured home-equity products. The estimate of one-time training cost is based on the estimate of ongoing training costs of $2,500 per year. Again, the Bureau used five times the annual training cost as the estimated one-time training cost ($12,500). Training costs provide the best-available proxy for the one-time cost to update compliance procedures and manuals, so the Bureau used $12,500 as an estimate of these costs as well. The one-time cost estimate for a representative moderate-complexity financial institution is therefore approximately $250,000 (=225,000+12,500+12,500), excluding the costs of mandatory reporting of dwelling-secured home-equity products. By including the 50 percent multiplier discussed above, the Bureau assumes that the one-time cost of mandatory reporting of dwelling-secured home-equity products is $125,000. Therefore, for a representative moderate-complexity financial institution, the one-time cost estimate including mandatory reporting of dwelling-secured home-equity products is $375,000.
For high-complexity financial institutions, outreach efforts indicated that representative costs to update information technology would be approximately $500,000. This estimate excludes the impact of expanding transactional coverage to include dwelling-secured home-equity products. The estimate of one-time training costs is based on the estimate of ongoing training costs of $30,000 per year. Again, the Bureau used five times the annual training cost as the estimated one-time training cost ($150,000). Training costs provide the best available proxy for the one-time cost to update compliance procedures and manuals, so the Bureau used $150,000 as an estimate
The Bureau estimates an overall market impact on one-time costs of between $383,000,000 and $2,100,000,000. As a frame of reference for all of these market-level, one-time cost estimates, the total non-interest expenses for current HMDA reporters were approximately $420 billion in 2012. The upper-bound estimate of $2.1 billion is approximately 0.5 percent of the total annual non-interest expenses.
The Bureau has taken a conservative approach to estimating the one-time costs because of the uncertainty regarding how many financial institutions belong to each of the three representative tiers. Thus the Bureau has mapped out all possible distributions to arrive at the lower bound and higher bound cost estimates, as explained in part VI.F.2, below. The Bureau hopes to obtain more information on the distribution of financial institutions across the three tiers and to refine its estimate of these one-time costs through feedback received during the rulemaking process. In particular, the Bureau seeks additional information on the number of HMDA reporters that are moderate complexity, tier 2 institutions.
In connection with the development of the proposed rule, the Bureau reviewed the current HMDA compliance systems and activities of financial institutions. The review used a cost-accounting, case-study methodology consisting, in part, of interviews with 20 financial institutions of various sizes, nine vendors, and 15 governmental agency representatives.
Based on the outreach described above, the Bureau classified the operational activities that financial institutions currently use for HMDA data collection and reporting into discrete compliance “tasks.” This classification consists of 18 “component tasks,” which can be grouped into four “primary tasks.” The level of detail of the classification is intended to facilitate estimation of baseline costs and to enable rigorous analysis of the impact of the proposals across a wide range of financial institutions. The four primary tasks are described briefly below.
1. Data collection: Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions, and transferring data to HMDA Management System (HMS).
2. Reporting and resubmission: Geocoding, standard annual edit and internal checks, researching questions, resolving question responses, checking post-submission edits, filing post-submission documents, creating public loan application register, distributing public loan application register, distributing disclosure report, and using vendor HMS software.
3. Compliance and internal audits: Training, internal audits, and external audits.
4. HMDA-related exams: Exam preparation and exam assistance.
In addition to collecting information about operational activities and costs, the Bureau also used outreach efforts and the Small Business Review Panel process to better understand the potential one-time costs that HMDA reporters will incur in response to the proposed rule. Management, legal, and compliance personnel will likely require time to learn new reporting requirements and assess legal and compliance risks. Financial institutions that use vendors for HMDA compliance will incur one-time costs associated with software installation, troubleshooting, and testing. The Bureau is aware that these activities will take time and that the costs may vary depending on the time available. Financial institutions that maintain their own reporting systems will incur one-time costs to develop, prepare, and implement necessary modifications to those systems. In all cases, financial institutions will need to update training materials to reflect new requirements and activities and may have certain one-time costs for providing initial training to current employees.
The Bureau recognizes that the cost per loan of complying with the current requirements of HMDA, as well as the operational and one-time impact of the proposed rule will differ by financial institution. During the Bureau's outreach with financial institutions, the Bureau identified seven key dimensions of compliance operations that were significant drivers of compliance costs. These seven dimensions are: The reporting system used; the degree of system integration; the degree of system automation; the compliance program; and the tools for geocoding, performing completeness checks, and editing. The Bureau found that financial institutions tended to have similar levels of complexity in compliance operations
To capture the relationships between operational complexity and compliance cost, the Bureau used these seven dimensions to define three broadly representative lenders according to the overall level of complexity of their compliance operations. Tier 1 denotes a representative financial institution with the highest level of complexity, tier 2 denotes a representative financial institution with a moderate level of complexity, and tier 3 denotes a representative financial institution with the lowest level of complexity. For each tier, the Bureau developed a separate set of assumptions and cost estimates. All of these assumptions and cost estimates apply at the institutional level.
Table 1 below provides an overview of all three representative tiers across the seven dimensions of compliance operations:
Tables 2–4 convey the baseline estimates of annual ongoing operational costs as well as the underlying formulas used to calculate these estimates for the 18 operational tasks for the three representative financial institutions. The wage rate is $28 per hour, which is the national average wage for compliance officers based on most recent National Compensation Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of applications for tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 financial institutions is 50, 1,000, and 50,000, respectively. The Bureau used similar breakdowns of the 18 operational tasks for each representative financial institution to estimate the impact of the proposal on ongoing operational costs. The Bureau notes that with the assumed wage rate, number of applications, and other key
To generate cost estimates at the market level, the Bureau developed an approach to map all HMDA reporters to one of three tiers. Because financial institutions are arrayed along a continuum of compliance cost that cannot be precisely mapped to three representative tiers, the Bureau has adopted a conservative strategy in providing a possible range of the number of financial institutions in each tier. To identify these distributions, the
As a first step, the Bureau identified all possible tier distributions that were consistent with these two reporter and record counts, using the same loan application register sizes adopted in the institutional-level analysis (50,000 for tier 1 institutions; 1,000 for tier 2 institutions; and 50 for tier 3 institutions). Specifically the Bureau set the following two constraints: (1) The total number of HMDA reporters in all three tiers must sum to 7,421; and (2) using the assumed loan application register size in each tier, the total number of loan application register records by all reporters in all three tiers must sum to 18,723,000. For this step, the Bureau imposed an additional constraint by classifying all 217 HMDA reporters with over 10,000 records as tier 1, because the Bureau's investigation led it to believe that these large financial institutions all possess a high level of complexity in HMDA reporting. This assumption helped to narrow the range of possible combinations. The Bureau also substituted the actual loan application register size of these 217 largest HMDA reporters into this constraint for the loan application register size of a tier 1 financial institution, further narrowing the range of possible combinations. The Bureau notes that all distributions identified are mathematically possible based on the Bureau's assumptions.
Second, for the subset of tier distributions satisfying these reporter and count constraints, the Bureau then estimated market-level costs based on the tier-specific assumptions and cost estimates. That is, for a given distribution derived in the first step, the Bureau multiplied the institutional-level cost estimate for each tier by the number of institutions in that tier, and then summed across all three tiers. The distributions with the lowest- and highest-estimated market-level costs provided the lower and upper bounds for the market-level estimates throughout the consideration of the benefits and costs. Specifically, the Bureau arrived at two distributions for all HMDA reporters: (1) The first distribution has 4 percent of financial institutions in tier 1, 0 percent of financial institutions in tier 2, and 96 percent of financial institutions in tier 3; and (2) the second distribution has 3 percent of financial institutions in tier 1, 66 percent of financial institutions in tier 2, and 31 percent of financial institutions in tier 3. The Bureau notes that these two distributions likely do not match the state of the world exactly. Nevertheless, for the set of assumptions described above, these distributions provide upper and lower bounds for the market-level estimates. The Bureau recognizes that this range estimate does not permit perfect precision in estimating the impact of the proposed rule and will refine the range estimate for the final rule to the extent that public comments supplement the Bureau's knowledge. The Bureau solicits comments and data that might assist in producing more precise estimates.
Initial outreach efforts, as well as information gathered during the Small Business Review Panel process, indicated that compliance costs for financial institutions were impacted by the complexity of the data field specifications and the process of submitting and editing HMDA data. As part of the proposed rule, the Bureau is considering enhancements to the sources of help and the processing procedures. For example, the Bureau is considering working to consolidate the outlets for assistance, providing guidance support similar to the guidance provided for title XIV rules; and improving points of contact processes for help inquiries. In addition, the Bureau is separately considering possible modifications to data submission tools to include loan-type specific edits and pre-approved edits. All of these enhancements would clarify the data field specifications and reduce burden. The consideration of benefits and costs discusses how these enhancements might affect the impact of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would revise the threshold that determines which financial institutions are required to report data under HMDA. Specifically, depository and nondepository institutions that meet all the other criteria for a “financial institution” in proposed § 1003.2(g) would only be required to report HMDA data if they originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, in the previous calendar year. The Bureau is proposing to no longer exempt nondepository institutions pursuant to its discretionary authority under HMDA section 309(a).
Based on data for 2012 from Call Reports, HMDA, and the NMLSR, the Bureau estimates that these proposed changes would reduce the number of reporting depository institutions by approximately 1,600 and increase the number of reporting nondepository institutions by approximately 450.
Similarly, expanding coverage among nondepository institutions could improve the processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. Financial regulators and enforcement agencies use HMDA data in their initial prioritization and screening processes to select institutions for examination. HMDA data also provide information that is used in fair lending reviews of mortgage lenders for potential violations
Finally, the proposed rule will also improve the ability to determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Information from data sources such as the United States Census, Call Reports, and the NMLSR can be used to characterize the housing needs of the communities each lender serves. HMDA data provide a supply-side picture of how well each lender is meeting these housing needs. Indeed, HMDA data may be analogized to a census of mortgage demand and supply for covered financial institutions. However, such data currently paints only a partial picture of the market served by financial institutions with 25 to 99 loans. The addition of nondepository institutions with between 25 and 99 originations will provide an improved understanding of the mortgage markets where these financial institutions operate, thereby enhancing efforts to assess whether these institutions, and financial institutions overall, are serving the housing needs of their communities.
The Bureau defines variable costs as costs that depend on the number of applications received. Based on initial outreach efforts, the following five operational steps affect variable costs: Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions, transferring data to an HMS, geocoding, and researching questions. The primary impact of the proposed rule on these operational steps is an increase in time spent per task. Overall, the Bureau estimates that the impact of the proposed rule on variable costs per application is approximately $13 for a representative tier 3 financial institution, $0.20 for a representative tier 2 financial institution, and $0.11 for a representative tier 1 financial institution.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that whether these costs were passed on would depend on the competiveness of the market in which they operate, especially for smaller financial institutions. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products, would leave geographic or product markets, or would spend less time on customer service. To the extent that the market is less than perfectly competitive and financial institutions are able to pass on a greater amount of these compliance costs, the cost to consumers would be slightly larger than the estimates described above. Even so the Bureau believes that the potential costs that would be passed on to consumers are small.
The proposed rule may impose additional costs on consumers. Reducing the number of depository institutions required to report will reduce HMDA's overall coverage of the mortgage market. This reduction would reduce the usefulness of HMDA data for assessing whether lenders are meeting the housing needs of their communities and highlighting opportunities for public and private investment. This reduction may also affect the usefulness of HMDA for identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns—especially for redlining analyses, which focus on market-level data and data on competitors. To better understand these potential costs, the Bureau analyzed the characteristics of the depository institutions that would be excluded by the 25-loan threshold, and compared these characteristics to depository institutions that currently report and would not be excluded. This type of analysis is possible because the proposed rule reduces both the number of depository institutions and the transactions they report, and the total universe reported under the current regulation is known. For this exercise, the Bureau also excluded purchased loans from its comparisons.
The Bureau analyzed the distribution of various HMDA data fields for depository institutions that would be newly excluded and included under the proposal. Overall, the Bureau found that, relative to depository institutions that would continue to report under the proposal, applications for covered loans at excluded depository institutions were more likely to be (1) made to the depository institutions supervised by the FDIC or NCUA; (2) unsecured or second-lien; (3) home improvement; (4) non-owner-occupied; (5) manufactured housing or multi-family; (6) portfolio loans; (7) higher-priced; and (8) lower-loan amount. Specifically, over 36 percent and 44 percent of applications that would be excluded were submitted to depository institutions regulated by the FDIC and NCUA, respectively. In contrast, for applications at depository institutions that would continue to report under the proposal, 13.74 percent
Excluding small-volume depository institutions currently reporting under HMDA also impacts the volume of records available for analysis at the market level. The geographic data fields currently in the HMDA data provide four possible market levels: State, MSA, county, and census tract. Overall, analysis
In addition to avoiding ongoing costs, the 1,600 excluded depository institutions would not incur the one-time costs necessary to modify processes in response to the proposed rule. The Bureau estimates these one-time costs to be, on average, $3,000 for tier 3 financial institutions. Assuming that all 1,600 depository institutions are tier 3 institutions, this yields an overall market savings of $4,800,000. Using a 7 percent discount rate and a five-year amortization window, the annualized one-time savings is $1,200,000.
The proposed rule requires financial institutions to report activity only for dwelling-secured loans, regardless of whether the loans are for home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing. As a result, home improvement loans not secured by a dwelling would be removed from the reporting requirements, while home-equity loans and reverse mortgages would be included regardless of purpose. Importantly, institutions would be required to report data on all open-end line of credit. In addition, for preapproval requests that are approved, but not accepted, reporting would change from optional to mandatory.
Using home-equity lines of credit and home-equity loans as an example, in the lead up to the financial crisis between 2000 and 2008, the balance of home-equity lending increased by approximately 16.8 percent annually, moving from $275.5 billion to $953.5 billion in total.
Including mandatory reporting of reverse mortgages also provides benefit to consumers. Reverse mortgages are a special mortgage product designed to satisfy the later-life consumption needs of seniors by leveraging their home equity while permitting them to maintain homeownership. In its Fiscal Year 2013, HUD endorsed in total 60,091 home-equity conversion mortgages (HECM), which counted for almost all of the reverse mortgage market. Various stakeholders and advocates have called for closer monitoring of the reverse mortgage market based on concerns of potential abuse to vulnerable seniors. Mandatory reporting of all reverse mortgages will provide public officials, community organizations, and members of the public with more information to assist consumers age 62 or older. This change is consistent with Congress's decision to include age in the Dodd-Frank Act, signaling its intention to strengthen protections for seniors.
Additionally, the proposed changes to transactional coverage would benefit consumers by improving fair lending analyses. Regulators, community groups, and researchers use HMDA data to identify disparities in mortgage lending based on race, ethnicity, and sex. These analyses are used for prioritization and scoping purposes to select the institutions and parts of institutions to review. Based on information from HUD and Moody's Analytics (May 2013), HMDA data currently include approximately 1 percent of home-equity lines of credit and 35 percent of home-equity loans. The extent of reverse mortgage reporting under HMDA is unknown because the existing data provide no way to distinguish reverse mortgages from other loans, but the Bureau believes that a substantial number of reverse mortgages are not reported under HMDA. Because a substantial amount of these transactions are not reported, it is not possible during prioritization analyses to develop a clear assessment of the fair lending risk to consumers of these specific products. In addition, all of these products may have unique underwriting and pricing guidelines that would merit separate analyses. It is not currently possible to identify these products in HMDA, however, so most fair lending analyses that use HMDA data combine these products and other products with potentially different underwriting and pricing standards. This shortcoming reduces the reliability of risk assessment analyses, limiting the ability to identify consumers that might have been impacted by potential discrimination.
Mandatory reporting of preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted will also benefit consumers through improved fair lending analyses. Data about preapproval requests that are approved but not accepted are optionally reported. Thus these data are largely absent from the HMDA data that regulators and community groups analyze. Including these preapproval requests would improve fair lending analysis by providing a more accurate comparison between those applications that satisfy a financial institution's underwriting criteria and those that did not.
The proposed rule also improves the ability of public officials to distribute public-sector investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed. HMDA data provide a broadly-representative picture of home lending in the nation unavailable from any other data source. Home-equity lines of credit and home-equity loans are important forms of lending that are considered in evaluations under the CRA. Mandatory reporting of all open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse
Similarly, the proposed rule also improves the ability to determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Mandatory reporting of all open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages will improve HMDA's coverage of the market for these specific products. This will enhance the usefulness of the data for assessing whether financial institutions are serving their communities.
The proposed transactional coverage will not impose any direct costs on consumers. Consumers may bear some indirect costs of the proposed changes if financial institutions that would be required to report home-equity lines of credit, home-equity loans, reverse mortgages, and preapproval requests that are approved, but not accepted passed on some or all of the costs imposed on them by the proposed rule. Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that these financial institutions will pass on increased variable costs to future mortgage applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed costs. The Bureau estimates that the overall impact of the proposed rule on variable costs per application is approximately $2 for a representative tier 3 financial institution, $0.11 for a representative tier 2 financial institution, and $0.07 for a representative tier 1 financial institution.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that this would be difficult in the current market where profit margins for mortgages are tight, especially for smaller financial institutions. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products offered, leave geographic or product markets, or spend less time on customer service. If lenders attempt and are able to pass on more than increases in variable costs to consumers, these estimates of the cost to consumers may be conservative. Nevertheless, the Bureau believes any such additional costs would be small relative to general cost of credit of mortgage loans amortized over the life of the loans.
Requiring reporting of all open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, reverse mortgages, and preapprovals that are approved, but not accepted will improve the prioritization process regulators and government enforcement agencies use to identify institutions at higher risk of fair lending violations. This improvement will reduce the false positives that occur when inadequate information causes lenders with low fair lending risk to be initially misidentified as high risk. Additional information on these products will explain some of these false positives, so that examination resources are used more efficiently and that lenders with low fair lending risk receive a reduced level of regulatory scrutiny.
The Bureau expects these one-time costs to be smaller for financial institutions that are less complex and less likely to have separate business lines with separate data platforms and data systems for home-equity products. These entities use less complex reporting processes, so tasks are more manual than automated, and new requirements may involve greater use of established processes. As a result, compliance would likely require straightforward changes in systems and workplace practices and therefore impose relatively low one-time costs. The Bureau believes that for these less-complex financial institutions, the one-time costs associated with the proposed change in transactional coverage would be captured by the overall estimate of the one-time costs the institutions would incur in response to the entire proposed rule. Thus, the Bureau estimates that the proposed rule will impose average one-time costs of $3,000 for tier 3 financial institutions.
For more complex financial institutions, the Bureau expects the one-time costs imposed by the proposed change in transactional coverage to be relatively large. To estimate these one-time costs, the Bureau views the business line responsible for home-equity products as a second business line that has to modify its reporting infrastructure in response to the proposed rule. Industry repeated this view of additional costs during the Bureau's outreach prior to this proposal. However, no financial institutions or trade associations have provided the Bureau with specific estimates of the one-time cost associated with this change. Some industry participants generally stated that the one-time cost of mandatory reporting of all home-equity lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages could be twice as much as the one-time cost of adapting to other parts of the proposed rule, but did not provide any further detail. The Bureau estimates that the overall proposed rule will impose average one-time costs of $250,000 for tier 2 financial institutions and $800,000 for tier 1 financial institutions, excluding reporting of home-equity lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages. The Bureau assumes that the one-time cost of integrating home-equity products into the HMDA reporting processes would be roughly equal to 50 percent of the one-time costs absent mandatory reporting of such products. This estimate accounts for the fact that some new systems may have to be built to facilitate reporting for these lines of business but that some fixed, one-time costs could be shared with lines of business currently subject to Regulation C because both have to undergo systemic changes. Using this general estimate (
In total, this yields an overall market impact between $383,000,000 and $2,100,000,000. Using a 7 percent discount rate and a five-year amortization window, the annualized one-time cost is $93,400,000 to $514,900,000. As a frame of reference for these market-level, one-time cost estimates, the total non-interest expenses of current HMDA reporters were approximately $420 billion in 2012. The upper bound estimate of $2.1 billion is approximately 0.5 percent of the total annual non-interest expenses.
The Bureau has taken a conservative approach to estimating the one-time costs because of the uncertainty regarding how many financial institutions belong to each of the three representative tiers. Thus, the Bureau has mapped out all possible distributions to arrive at the lower bound and higher bound cost estimates, as explained in part VI.F.2, above. The Bureau hopes to obtain more information on the distribution of financial institutions across the three tiers and to refine its estimate of these one-time costs through feedback received during the rulemaking process. In particular, the Bureau seeks additional information on the number of HMDA reporters that are moderate complexity, tier 2 institutions.
For proposed mandatory reporting of preapproval requests that are approved, but not accepted, the Bureau believes that the primary impact will be on ongoing operational costs rather than on one-time costs. Financial institutions are currently required to report whether a preapproval was requested for home purchase loans, and whether the preapproval was approved (if accepted) or denied, so the infrastructure to report preapproval information is already in place. Expanding mandatory reporting to all outcomes of the preapproval process therefore primarily impacts the ongoing, operational tasks required to gather information and data on additional reportable transactions.
Reporting data for these additional loans would increase operational costs by approximately $265, $2,400 and $16,500 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2 and tier 1 financial institutions, respectively.
Initial outreach efforts, as well as information gathered during the Small Business Review Panel process, indicated that uncertainty regarding reportability generated significant costs for financial institutions. In addition to the proposed rule, the Bureau is separately considering operational enhancements and modifications. For example, the Bureau is considering working to consolidate the outlets for assistance, providing guidance support similar to the guidance provided for title XIV rules; improving point of contact processes for help inquiries; modifying the types of edits and when edits are approved; exploring opportunities to improve current DES; and considering approaches to reduce geocoding burdens. All of these enhancements will clarify reportability issues, improve processing, and reduce burden. With the inclusion of these operational improvements, operational costs would increase by approximately $180, $1,900, and $15,700 per year, for the representative entities in tier 3, tier 2 and tier 1, respectively. This translates into a market-level cost of $5,900,000 to $13,300,000 per year. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value of this cost over five years is $24,300,000 to $54,400,000.
Including the proposed operational improvements reduces the estimated operational costs of reporting data for preapprovals by approximately $45, $460 and $3,700 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2 and tier 1 financial institutions, respectively. This translates into a market-level savings of $1,400,000 to $3,200,000 per year. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value of this savings over five years is $5,800,000 to $12,900,000.
For each application, originated loan, or purchased loan submitted as part of a financial institution's loan application register, Regulation C currently requires reporting of 35 separate pieces of information, and allows for optional reporting of three denial reasons.
The proposed revisions include improvements and technical revisions to current Regulation C data requirements; the implementation as required or appropriate of the categories of information specifically identified in the Dodd-Frank Act; and the addition of other data points that fill existing informational gaps and would further the purposes of HMDA. To the extent practicable, all of these proposed changes align new data fields and definitions with industry data standards. In order to develop this proposed alignment, the Bureau analyzed each data point currently included in Regulation C, each new data point identified in the Dodd-Frank Act, and each additional data point under consideration by the Bureau to determine whether analogous data exist in the ULDD data set (first preference) or the larger MISMO data dictionary (second preference). In each instance, the MISMO/ULDD definitions would need to be adequate to meet the objectives of HMDA and Regulation C. For data points that cannot be aligned with MISMO/ULDD, the Bureau is considering aligning data points with definitions provided by other regulations, or using a completely new definition.
In addition to adding four data fields, the proposed rule will also change the information reported for eight current HMDA data fields. These revisions address changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act, align current HMDA fields with industry data standards, and close information gaps. Specifically, to address changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial institution's identifier will be replaced by a Legal Entity Identifier, application ID will be replaced by a unique, robust ID number, and rate spread will be required for all originations covered by Regulation Z. As part of the effort to align current data fields with MISMO/ULDD, occupancy will be revised to convey primary home, second home or investment property, and lien status will be expanded to allow for third, fourth, and fifth liens. Finally, to close information gaps, loan amount will be reported in dollars instead of thousands of dollars; an additional “other” category will be added to loan purpose; the HOEPA flag will be revised to convey whether HOEPA was triggered by rate, points and fees, or both; and lien status will be required for purchased loans.
For example, the reason for denial is a key data point used to understand underwriting decisions and focus fair lending reviews. Currently, § 1003.4(c)(1) permits optional reporting of the reasons for denial of a loan application. Mandatory reporting of this information, pursuant to proposed § 1003.4(c)(16), combined with enhanced or additional data points commonly used in underwriting decisions, will provide more consistent and meaningful data, thereby improving the ability to identify both discriminatory lending patterns in underwriting decisions and consumers who have been disadvantaged so that appropriate restitution can be provided. In addition, denial reasons combined with careful analysis of key underwriting variables could help reduce the false positive rate of fair lending prioritization analyses, leading to better targeting of fair lending reviews and thereby reducing compliance costs to some covered persons subject to fair lending exams.
Additionally, rate spread is currently the only quantitative pricing measure in HMDA, and it is only available for originated loans meeting or exceeding the higher-priced mortgage loan thresholds for first- and second-lien loans. Expanding reporting of rate spread to all originations covered by Regulation Z, except purchased loans and reverse mortgage transactions, greatly enhances HMDA's usefulness for analyzing fair lending risk in pricing decisions. This proposed change will also reduce the false positive rate observed during fair lending prioritization analyses so that the resources of regulators and financial institutions are used more efficiently. This information will also improve the limited picture of the cost of credit provided by current HMDA data.
The proposed rule would revise data regarding occupancy status by requiring separate itemization of second residences and investment properties, and data regarding property type by adding the total number of units and number of units that are income-restricted pursuant to affordable housing programs. These revisions would allow more accurate accounting of the differences in underwriting and pricing policies and outcomes and hence would reduce false positive rates in current fair lending prioritization processes used by regulatory agencies.
The Bureau also believes that the proposed revisions to the current HMDA data fields, which increase the amount of information included in the HMDA dataset, will improve the ability to assess whether financial institutions are meeting the housing needs of their communities and assist public officials in making decisions about public-sector investments. The denial reason data fields will provide greater understanding of why credit is denied or offered to specific communities, and the rate spread data point will provide additional information about the affordability of the credit offered.
Additionally, the proposed revisions to the occupancy status data field would provide finer gradients by separately identifying second homes and investment properties, which would help identify trends involving potentially speculative purchases of housing units similar to those that contributed to the recent financial crisis. Recent research suggests that speculative purchases by investors were one potential driver of the recent housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis.
Finally, proposed revisions to the property type data field would be of particular interest in the wake of the housing crisis as families have increasingly turned to rental housing. Greater detail about multifamily housing finance may provide additional information about whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that this would be difficult in the current market where profit margins for mortgages are tight. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products offered, leave geographic or product markets, or spend less time on customer service.
The Bureau believes that the burden associated with Regulation C compliance and data submission can be reduced by aligning the requirements of Regulation C to existing industry standards for collecting and transmitting data on mortgage loans and applications. Promoting consistent data standards for both industry and regulatory use has benefits for market efficiency, market understanding, and market oversight. The efficiencies achieved by such alignment should grow over time, as the industry moves toward common data standards platforms. In light of these considerations, the Bureau is proposing to align the HMDA data requirements, to the extent practicable, with the widely-used MISMO standards for residential mortgages, including the ULDD that is used in the delivery of loans to the government-sponsored entities.
For example, many lenders already separately identify second residence and investment properties in their underwriting process and LOS. Separate enumeration of these properties is present in MISMO/ULDD. Therefore, aligning to industry standards would reduce burden for financial institutions by maintaining the same definition for HMDA reporting that they use in the ordinary course of business. Smaller, less-complex financial institutions will experience fewer potential benefits because these institutions rely on more manual reporting processes and are more likely to originate portfolio loans where MISMO/ULDD may have not been adopted.
Among current HMDA data fields, property type, occupancy, and lien status will be modified to align with MISMO/ULDD. This alignment will reduce costs for training and researching questions. The Bureau estimates that this alignment will reduce operational costs by approximately $100, $900, and $8,600 per year for representative tier 3, 2, and 1 financial institutions, respectively.
Adding three new variables (denial reasons) and one variable aligned with ULDD (occupancy status) increases costs because financial institutions now have to report four additional fields. Adding these additional data fields increases the costs of transcribing data, transferring data to HMS, conducting annual edits/checks, and conducting external audits. The Bureau estimates that this component of the proposed rule would increase operational costs by approximately $135, $860, and $2,200 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 financial institutions, respectively.
With the inclusion of the operational improvements the Bureau is considering, the proposed rule will increase operational costs by approximately $105, $550, and $1,680 per year for representative tier 3, tier 2, and tier 1 financial institutions, respectively. This translates into a market-level cost of between $570,000 and $1,500,000. Using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value over five years would be a cost increase of $2,300,000 to $6,000,000.
The primary cost impact of modifying eight existing data fields, three of which would align with ULDD, will be increases in one-time costs to modify current reporting policies and procedures, update software systems, and conduct training and planning. These cost impacts will generally be addressed in the discussion of one-time costs below, except for the proposed requirement that financial institutions obtain and report an LEI instead of the current reporter's ID. The Bureau estimates that the one-time cost of acquiring an LEI is approximately $200 with an ongoing cost of approximately $100 per year. This translates into an estimated market-level impact of $1,480,000 in one-time costs and an increase of $740,000 in ongoing costs per year. For one-time costs, using a 7 percent discount rate and five-year window, the annualized cost is $361,000. For ongoing costs, using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value over five years is an increase in costs of approximately $3,000,000.
Second, the additional data points will improve current policy efforts designed to address various market failures. As discussed previously, the mortgage market is characterized by information asymmetry and this inherent deficiency was made apparent during the financial crisis. In response to the recent financial crisis, the government has pursued a number of policies aimed at regulating the market and protecting consumers. The additional data points being proposed will help inform future policy-making efforts by improving consideration of the benefits and costs associated with various choices, resulting in more effective policy. As an example, many recent regulations have limited the types of risky mortgage products that lenders can make to borrowers without fully considering borrowers' ability to repay. New data fields on non-amortizing features, introductory interest rate, prepayment penalty, debit-to-income ratio, and the qualified mortgage indicator can assist future assessment of the effectiveness of such regulations and facilitate adjustments when needed.
Third, the additional data points will help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities and help public officials target public investment to better attract private investment. For example, the proposed data points related to manufactured housing would reveal more information about this segment of the market. Borrowers in manufactured housing are typically more financially vulnerable than borrowers in site-built housing and may deserve closer attention from government agencies and community groups. Similarly, the proposed data points related to multifamily dwellings would reveal more information about this segment of the market, which mostly serves low- to mid-income renters who live in these financed units. Advocacy groups and government agencies have raised concerns over affordability issues faced by individuals living in multifamily dwellings, who also tend to be more financially vulnerable. Overall, by permitting a better and more comprehensive understanding of these markets, the proposal will improve the usefulness of HMDA data for assessing the supply and demand of credit, and financial institutions' treatment of applicants and borrowers in these communities.
Fourth, the Bureau believes that the additional data points will improve current processes used to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforce antidiscrimination statutes. Financial regulators and enforcement agencies use HMDA data in their initial prioritization and screening processes to select institutions for examination and as the base dataset during fair lending reviews. The additional data will allow for improved segmentation during these analyses, so that applications are compared to other applications for similar products. For example, underwriting and pricing policies often differ for open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, reverse mortgages, and products with different amortization types. Currently, these products are all combined during prioritization and screening analyses. With additional data fields identifying these products, separate analyses can be conducted for each product, which will more accurately reflect outcomes for consumers. As a second example, pricing often differs across delivery channels, because pricing policies and processing differ, and because intermediaries, such as brokers, add an additional layer requiring compensation. The addition of the origination channel data point will permit the separation of originations for pricing analyses, allowing for a better understanding of the drivers of pricing outcomes. Improved segmentation improves the accuracy of fair lending analyses, which improves the usefulness of HMDA to identify potentially disadvantaged consumers.
The additional data points on pricing will greatly improve the usefulness of HMDA data for assessing pricing outcomes. Currently, the rate spread data field is the only quantitative pricing measure included in the current HMDA data . This data field includes rate spread data only for higher-priced mortgage loans, which currently comprise less than 5 percent of originated loans in the HMDA data. Thus, in today's environment, and for the foreseeable future, the usefulness of this data field is highly limited. In addition, mortgage products and pricing structure are inherently complex. APR alone, though useful and recognizable to borrowers, fails to capture the true cost of a mortgage loan. Adding discount points, interest rate, and risk-adjusted, pre-discounted interest rate will provide a much clearer understanding of the trade-offs between rates and points that are the foundation of mortgage pricing. The total points and fees and origination-charge data fields will provide a deeper understanding of the third component of mortgage pricing: Fees.
Many of the additional data points capture legitimate factors financial institutions use in underwriting and pricing that are currently lacking in the HMDA data, helping regulators and government enforcement agencies to better understand disparities in outcomes. Many, if not all, lenders consider data points such as credit score, CLTV, DTI, and AUS results when either underwriting or pricing mortgage applications. The addition of
Finally, the addition of the age data field will allow users to analyze outcomes for different age groups. Although consumers are protected against discrimination on the basis of age by ECOA and Regulation B, HMDA data lack a direct means of measuring the age of applicants, which limits the ability of government agencies and community groups to monitor and enforce the ECOA and Regulation B against age discrimination in mortgage markets. The addition of the age data field would provide a clearer understanding of different age groups. In particular, older individuals are one demographic group that is potentially at a higher risk of discrimination, as well as unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. This data is especially important as baby boomers enter retirement. The addition of the age data field would allow regulatory agencies and community groups to identify potential differential treatment of older Americans for various mortgage products. For example, reverse mortgages are designed to serve senior consumers and are priced based on age factors, providing an illustration of the importance of adding this data field to the HMDA data. The age data field will allow users of HMDA data to better understand reverse mortgages, increasing HMDA's usefulness for assessing whether financial institutions are meeting the credit needs of older populations in their communities when offering these products. Age data might also help inform housing policies designed to assist seniors in maintaining or obtaining home ownership, and building or utilizing home equity for improved social welfare.
All of these improvements would reduce the false positive rates that occur when inadequate information causes regulators and enforcement agencies to initially misidentify financial institutions with low fair lending risk as having high risk of fair lending violations. Better alignment between the degrees of regulatory scrutiny and fair lending risk would increase the likelihood of identifying any instances where consumers are being illegally disadvantaged, thereby ultimately benefitting consumers.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that this would be difficult in the current market where profit margins for mortgages are tight. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products offered, leave geographic or product markets, or spend less time on customer service.
The Bureau estimates the additional reporting requirements would impose on average estimated one-time costs of $3,000 for tier 3 financial institutions, $250,000 for tier 2 financial institutions, and $800,000 for tier 1 financial institutions and without considering the expansion of transactional coverage to include mandatory reporting of all open-end lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages.
The Bureau has taken a conservative approach to estimating the one-time costs because of the uncertainty regarding how many financial institutions belong to each of the three representative tiers. Thus, the Bureau has mapped out all possible distributions to arrive at the lower bound and higher bound cost estimates, as explained in part VI.F.2, above. The Bureau hopes to obtain more information on the distribution of financial institutions across the three tiers and to refine its estimate of these one-time costs through feedback received during the rulemaking process. In particular, the Bureau seeks additional information on the number of HMDA reporters that are moderate complexity, tier 2 institutions.
The Bureau has taken a conservative approach to estimating the one-time costs because of the uncertainty regarding how many financial institutions belong to each of the three representative tiers. Thus, the Bureau has mapped out all possible distributions to arrive at the lower bound and higher bound cost estimates, as explained in part VI.F.2, above. The Bureau hopes to obtain more information on the distribution of financial institutions across the three tiers and to refine its estimate of these one-time costs through feedback received during the rulemaking process. In particular, the Bureau seeks additional information on the number of HMDA reporters that are moderate complexity, tier 2 institutions.
The proposed rule would make several changes to the disclosure and reporting requirements under Regulation C. Regulation C currently requires that a financial institution must make its “modified” loan application register available to the public after removing three fields to protect applicant and borrower privacy: The application or loan number, the date that the application was received, and the date action was taken. The Bureau's proposal would require that financial institutions make available to the public a modified loan application register showing only the data fields that are currently released on the modified loan application register. The proposal would also permit a financial institution to make its disclosure statement available to the public by making available a notice that clearly conveys that the disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address. The Bureau is also proposing to require that a financial institution that reported at least 75,000 covered loans, applications, and purchased covered loans, combined, for the preceding calendar year submit its loan application registers to the Bureau or appropriate agency on a quarterly, rather than annual, basis. Finally, the proposal would eliminate the option for financial institutions with 25 or fewer reported transactions to submit the loan application register in paper format.
However, quarterly reporting by financial institutions that reported at least 75,000 transactions in the preceding calendar year may have a number of benefits to consumers. Currently, there is significant delay between the time that final action is taken on an application and the time this information about the application or loan is reported to the Bureau and the appropriate agencies under HMDA. This time delay ranges from 2 months if the date of final action occurs during December to 14 months if the date of final action occurs during January. The Bureau believes that timelier data would improve the ability of the Bureau and the appropriate agencies to identify current trends in mortgage markets, detect early warning signs of future housing finance crises, and determine, in much closer to “real time,” whether financial institutions are fulfilling their obligations to serve the housing needs of communities in which they are located. Timelier identification of risks to mortgage markets and troublesome trends by the Bureau and the appropriate agencies would allow for more effective interventions by public officials. Finally, although the Bureau currently does not plan for the FFIEC to release HMDA data to the public more frequently than annually, it believes that quarterly reporting may allow the Bureau and FFIEC to expedite the disclosure of annual HMDA data to the public because it would permit the processing of a significant volume of HMDA data throughout the year. Because, based on 2012 data, financial institutions that would be subject to quarterly reporting likely would report approximately 50 percent of all reported transactions, the benefits described above would relate to a substantial segment of the mortgage market.
However, consumers may bear some indirect costs of the proposed changes if financial institutions pass on some or all of their increased costs to consumers. Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that financial institutions will pass on increased variable costs to future loan applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed costs if financial institutions are profit maximizers and the market is perfectly competitive. The Bureau defines variable costs as costs that depend on the number of applications received. Based on initial outreach efforts, five of the 18 operational tasks are variable cost tasks: Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions, transferring data to an HMS, geocoding, and researching questions. The Bureau believes that the four proposed changes discussed in this section would have either no, or only a minimal, effect on these variable cost tasks. The proposal to require that financial institutions make available to the public a modified loan application register showing only the data fields that are currently released on the modified loan application register will not impact any operational step. Eliminating the option of paper reporting for financial institutions reporting 25 or fewer records may increase transcribing costs for financial institutions that qualify for this option and currently report HMDA data in paper form. However, the Bureau believes that the number of financial institutions that report in paper format is very low. Also, if the proposal to exclude from the definition of financial institution any institution that originated less than 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit, is adopted,
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that whether costs were passed on would depend upon the competiveness of the market in which they operate, especially for smaller financial institutions. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products, would leave geographic or product markets, or would spend less time on customer service. To the extent that lenders are able to pass on a greater amount of these compliance costs, the costs to consumers would be slightly larger than the estimates described above. Nevertheless, the Bureau still believes that the potential costs that would be passed on to consumers are small.
Requiring quarterly reporting by financial institutions that reported at least 75,000 transactions in the preceding calendar year would increase ongoing costs to covered persons, as costs would increase for annual edits and internal checks, checking post-submission edits, filing post-submission edits, internal audits, and external audits. The Bureau estimates that this proposed change would increase ongoing operational costs by approximately $19,000 per year for a representative tier 3 financial institutions.
Based on 2012 HMDA data, 28 financial institutions reported at least 75,000 transactions in the preceding calendar year, which is substantially larger than the average loan application register sizes of the representative tier 3 (50 records), tier 2 institutions (1,000 records), and tier 1 institutions (50,000) assumed by the Bureau. Therefore, the Bureau believes that it is reasonable to regard all of these institutions as tier 1 HMDA reporters. This yields an estimated market cost of $532,000 (=28*19000). Using a 7 percent discount rate, the net present value of this impact over five years would be approximately an increase in costs of $2,200,000.
The proposal to permit financial institutions to make their disclosure statements available to the public through a notice that clearly conveys that the disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site would require a one-time cost to create the notice. However the Bureau believes that the one-time cost to create this notice would be negligible.
As discussed above, the proposed rule would exclude financial institutions with fewer than 25 originated covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit; require reporting of home-equity lines of credit, home-equity loans, and reverse mortgages; exclude reporting of unsecured home improvement loans; modify current HMDA data points to address the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA and align the data points with industry data standards to the extent practicable; and add additional data points to implement the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and to fulfill the purposes of HMDA.
The Bureau believes that the benefits of these proposed rules to depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets will be similar to the benefit to creditors as a whole, as discussed above. Regarding costs, other than as noted here, the Bureau also believes that the impact of the proposed rule on the depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets will be similar to the impact for creditors as a whole. The primary difference in the impact on these institutions is likely to
Based on Call Report data for December 2012, 13,998 of 14,110 depository institutions and credit unions had $10 billion or less in total assets. The 112 depository institutions and credit unions with over $10 billion in assets are most likely tier 1 institutions based on the Bureau's definition. The 28 institutions that reported at least 75,000 transactions in the preceding calendar year and would be required to report quarterly with the proposals and are assumed to be tier 1 institutions. Under these assumptions, the Bureau estimates that the market-level impact of the proposed rule on operational costs for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets would be a cost of between $6,400,000 and $10,500,000. Using a discount rate of 7 percent, the net present value of this cost over five years is between $26,200,000 and $42,800,000. Regarding one-time costs, the Bureau estimates that the market-level impact of the proposed rule for depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets is between $186,400,000 and $1,700,000,000. Using a 7 percent discount rate and a five-year amortization window, the annualized one-time cost is $45,500,000 and $410,000,000.
The proposed provisions will not directly impact consumers in rural areas. However, as with all consumers, consumers in rural areas may bear some indirect costs of the proposal. This would occur if financial institutions serving rural areas are HMDA reporters and if these institutions pass on some or all of the cost increase to consumers.
Recent research suggests that financial institutions that primarily serve rural areas are generally not HMDA reporters.
However, although some research suggests that HMDA currently does not cover a significant number of financial institutions serving the rural housing market, HMDA data do contain information for some covered loans involving properties in rural areas. These data can be used to estimate the number of HMDA reporters servicing rural areas, and the number of consumers in rural areas that might potentially be affected by the proposed changes to Regulation C. For this analysis, the Bureau uses non-MSA areas as a proxy for rural areas, with the understanding that portions of MSAs and non-MSAs may contain urban and rural territory and populations. In 2012, 5,525 HMDA reporters reported applications or purchased loans for property located in geographic areas outside of an MSA.
Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that financial institutions will pass on increased variable costs to future mortgage applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed costs if financial institutions are profit maximizers and the market is perfectly competitive.
During the Small Business Review Panel process, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on all increased compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, but that this would depend upon the competiveness of the market in which they operate, especially for smaller financial institutions. In addition, some small entity representatives noted that they would attempt to pass on costs through higher fees on other products, exit geographic or product markets, or spend less time on customer service. To the extent that the market is less than perfectly competitive and the lenders are able to pass on a greater amount of these compliance costs, the costs to consumers would be slightly larger than the estimates described above. Nevertheless, the Bureau believes that the potential costs that would be passed on to consumers are small.
Given the differences between rural and non-rural markets in structure, demand, supply, and competition level, consumers in rural areas may experience benefits and costs from the proposed rule that are different than those experienced by consumers in general. To the extent that the impacts of the proposal on creditors differ by type of creditor, this may affect the costs and benefits of the proposal on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau will further consider the impact of the proposed rule on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau therefore asks interested parties to provide data, research results, and other factual information on the impact of the proposed rule on consumers in rural areas. For example, this would include any evidence and supporting information indicating that access to credit would fall or the cost of credit would increase.
The Bureau will further consider the benefits, costs and impacts of the proposed provisions and additional alternatives before finalizing the proposed rule. As noted above, there are a number of areas where additional information would allow the Bureau to better estimate the benefits, costs, and impacts of this proposed rule and more fully inform the rulemaking. The Bureau asks interested parties to provide comment or data on various aspects of the proposed rule, as detailed in the section-by-section analysis.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.
The Bureau has not certified that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. Accordingly, the Bureau convened and chaired a Small Business Review Panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to consider the impact of the proposed rule on small entities that would be subject to that rule and to obtain feedback from representatives of such small entities. The Small Business Review Panel for this rulemaking is discussed below in part VII.A.
The Bureau is publishing an IRFA. Among other things, the IRFA estimates the number of small entities that will be subject to the proposed rule and describes the impact of that rule on those entities. The IRFA for this rulemaking is set forth below in part VII.B.
Under section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA and the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau seeks, prior to conducting the IRFA, information from representatives of small entities that may potentially be affected by its proposed rules to assess the potential impacts of that rule on such small entities.
In December 2013, the Bureau provided the Chief Counsel with the formal notification and other information required under section 609(b)(1) of the RFA. To obtain feedback from small entity representatives to inform the Small Business Review Panel pursuant to sections 609(b)(2) and 609(b)(4) of the RFA, the Bureau, in consultation with the Chief Counsel, identified three categories of small entities that may be subject to the proposed rule for purposes of the IRFA: Commercial banks and savings institutions, credit unions, and mortgage companies (
On February 27, 2014, the Bureau formally convened the Small Business Review Panel pursuant to section 609(b)(3) of the RFA. Afterwards, to collect the advice and recommendations of the small entity representatives under section 609(b)(4) of the RFA, the Small Business Review Panel held an outreach meeting/teleconference with the small entity representatives on March 6, 2014 (Panel Outreach Meeting). To help the small entity representatives prepare for the Panel Outreach Meeting beforehand, the Small Business Review Panel circulated briefing materials prepared in connection with section 609(b)(4) of the RFA that summarized the proposals under consideration at that time, posed discussion issues, and provided information about the SBREFA process generally.
On April 24, 2014, the Director of the Bureau, Richard Cordray, signed the written SBREFA Final Report
In preparing this proposed rule and the IRFA, the Bureau has carefully considered the feedback from the small entity representatives participating in the SBREFA process and the findings and recommendations in the SBREFA Final Report. The section-by-section analysis of the proposed rule in part V, above, and the IRFA discuss this feedback and the specific findings and recommendations of the Small Business Review Panel, as applicable. The SBREFA process provided the Small Business Review Panel and the Bureau with an opportunity to identify and explore opportunities to minimize the burden of the rule on small entities while achieving the rule's purposes. It is important to note, however, that the Small Business Review Panel prepared the SBREFA Final Report at a preliminary stage of the proposal's development and that the SBREFA Final Report—in particular, the Small Business Review Panel's findings and recommendations—should be considered in that light. Also, any options identified in the SBREFA Final Report for reducing the proposed rule's regulatory impact on small entities were expressly subject to further consideration, analysis, and data collection by the Bureau to ensure that the options identified were practicable, enforceable, and consistent with HMDA, the Dodd-Frank Act, and their statutory purposes. The proposed rule and the IRFA reflect further consideration, analysis, and data collection by the Bureau.
Under RFA section 603(a), an IRFA “shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.”
As discussed in the background, part II above, for more than 30 years HMDA has required financial institutions to collect, report to regulators, and disclose to the public data about applications and originations of home mortgage loans. HMDA was intended to provide the public with information that can be used to help determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, to assist public officials in distributing public-sector investment so as to attract private investment, and to assist in identifying possible discriminatory
Users of HMDA data, however, have consistently advocated for expansion of HMDA data to keep pace with the mortgage market's evolution, particularly during the market's rapid growth into nontraditional lending products and its subsequent collapse in 2008. In 2010, Congress responded to the mortgage crisis in the Dodd-Frank Act by enacting changes to HMDA as well as directing reforms to the mortgage market and the broader financial system. In addition to transferring rulemaking authority for HMDA from the Board to the Bureau, section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, directed the Bureau to implement changes requiring the collection and reporting of several new data points, and authorized the Bureau to require financial institutions to collect and report such other information as the Bureau may require.
The proposed rule, therefore, both follows on the prior efforts of the Board to address shortcomings in HMDA's reporting requirements, and effectuates Congress's specific mandate to the Bureau to implement changes regarding the collection and reporting of HMDA data. For a further description of the reasons why agency action is being considered, see the background discussion for the proposed rule in part II, above.
This rulemaking has multiple objectives. First, the proposed rule is designed to improve the usefulness of HMDA data for determining whether institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities, identifying potentially discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination laws, and helping public officials target public investment so as to attract private investment to areas where it is needed. To achieve these objectives, the proposed rule requires financial institutions to report additional information regarding originations and applications of mortgage loans, and makes several modifications to the institutional and transactional coverage of Regulation C. To improve the quality and timeliness of HMDA data, the Bureau is also proposing to require financial institutions with large numbers of reported transactions to submit their HMDA data on a quarterly, rather than an annual, basis.
The Bureau also intends for the proposal to reduce unnecessary burden on financial institutions. To this end, the Bureau is proposing to adjust Regulation C's institutional coverage test to simplify the institutional coverage requirements by adopting, for all financial institutions, a uniform loan-volume threshold of 25 loans. The proposed rule would also increase the clarity of the regulation by, among other things, modifying the definitions of certain ambiguous terms, adopting certain new definitions, and consolidating the list of exempt institutions and excluded transactions in the same section. Under the proposed regulation, financial institutions would make available to the public a modified loan application register showing only the data fields that are currently released on the modified loan application register, and financial institutions would be permitted to direct members of the public to a publicly available Web site to obtain their disclosure statements. Finally, the proposed rule would modernize and streamline the manner in which financial institutions collect and report HMDA data. Among other things, the Bureau is proposing to align the data requirements with the widely-used MISMO data standards to the extent practicable, and is separately considering various improvements to the HMDA data submission process, such as moving the HMDA data entry software to the Web and restructuring the geocoding process.
As described above, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the Bureau the “consumer financial protection functions” previously vested in certain other Federal agencies, and authorized the Bureau to prescribe rules necessary or appropriate to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof, including HMDA. As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes. These regulations can include “classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any class of transactions, as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of [HMDA], and prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.” HMDA section 304 requires itemization of specified categories of information, including information about borrowers and loan features and pricing, as well as “such other information as the Bureau may require.” Finally, HMDA also grants the Bureau authority over the formats required for compilation and public disclosure of HMDA data, the format required for disclosure to the Bureau or other Federal agencies, and the improvement of methods of matching addresses and census tracts to facilitate HMDA compliance. The legal basis for the proposed rule is discussed in detail in the legal authority analysis in part IV and in the section-by-section analysis in part V, above.
The following table provides the Bureau's estimate of the number and types of entities that may be affected by the proposals under consideration:
The proposed rule would modify current reporting requirements and impose new reporting requirements by requiring financial institutions to report additional information required by the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as certain information determined by the Bureau to be necessary and proper to effectuate HMDA's purposes. The proposed rule also modifies the scope of the institutional and transactional coverage thresholds. The Bureau is also proposing to allow a financial institution to make its disclosure statement available to the public by making available at its home office and each branch office located in an MSA and MD a notice that clearly conveys that the institution's disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the Web site address. The section-by-section analysis of the proposed rule in part V, above, discusses the additional required data
Second, the proposed revisions to the transactional coverage criteria would eliminate reporting of unsecured home improvement loans. The Bureau believes most small entities will be comparable to the representative tier 3 institution based on the Bureau's assumptions discussed extensively in part VI.E of this supplementary information, and that the volume of applications for unsecured home improvement loans for these financial institutions is small. Therefore, the benefit from this change will be small for most small entities. However, some small entities may receive larger volumes of applications for unsecured home improvement products, and the benefit will be larger for these financial institutions.
Third, the proposed revisions requiring mandatory reporting of all home-equity lines of credit, home-equity loans, reverse mortgages, and preapproval requests that have been approved but not accepted, combined with the additional data points being proposed, will improve the prioritization process that regulators and enforcement agencies use to identify institutions with higher fair lending risk. During prioritization analyses, the additional transactions and data points will allow for improved segmentation, so that applications are compared to other applications for similar products. In addition, the data points will add to the legitimate factors used in underwriting and pricing that are currently lacking in the HMDA data, helping regulators and government enforcement agencies better understand disparities in outcomes. These improvements will reduce false positives that occur when inadequate information causes lenders with low fair lending risk to be initially misidentified as having high-risk. The additional information on these products and data points will explain some of these false positives, so that examination resources can be used more efficiently and lenders with low fair lending risk receive a reduced level of regulatory scrutiny. For small entities currently receiving regulatory oversight, this could greatly reduce the burden from fair lending examinations and enforcement actions.
Fourth, incorporating into the proposed rule alignment of current HMDA data fields with industry data standards provides a benefit to small entities. The Bureau believes that the burden associated with Regulation C compliance and data submission can be reduced by aligning to the extent practicable the requirements of Regulation C to existing industry standards for collecting and transmitting data on mortgage loans and applications. The Bureau believes that promoting consistent data standards for both industry and regulatory use has benefits for market efficiency, market understanding, and market oversight. The efficiencies achieved by aligning HMDA data with widely used industry data standards should grow over time. Specific to small entities, outreach efforts have determined that aligning HMDA with industry data standards will reduce costs for training and researching questions.
Finally, the proposed additional fields will improve the usefulness of HMDA data for analyzing mortgage markets by the regulators and the public. For instance, data points such as non-amortizing features, introductory interest rate, and prepayment penalty that are commonly related to higher risk lending will provide a better understanding of the types of products and features consumers are receiving. This will allow for improved monitoring of trends in mortgage markets and help identify problems that could potentially harm consumers and society overall. Lowering the likelihood of future financial crises benefits all financial institutions, including small entities.
The proposed revisions to transaction coverage would make reporting of open-end lines of credit mandatory, rather than optional; require reporting of all home-equity loans, not just those to be used for home purchase, refinancing, or home improvement; and require reporting of all reverse mortgages. These additional reporting requirements would increase operational costs for small entities as costs increase to transcribe data, resolve reportability questions, transfer data to HMS, and research questions.
The proposed rule adds additional data points identified by the Dodd-Frank Act and that the Bureau believes are necessary to close information gaps. As part of this proposal, the Bureau is aligning all current and proposed data points to industry data standards to the extent practicable. The additional data points will increase ongoing operational costs, and impose one-time costs as small entities modify reporting infrastructure to incorporate additional fields. The transition to industry data standards would offset this cost slightly through reduced costs of researching questions and training.
The following table conveys the classes of small entities affected:
Based on outreach with financial institutions, vendors, and governmental agency representatives, the Bureau classified the operational activities that financial institutions currently use for HMDA data collection and reporting into 18 operational “tasks” which can be further grouped into four “primary tasks.” These are:
1. Data collection: Transcribing data, resolving reportability questions, and transferring data to an HMS.
2. Reporting and resubmission: Geocoding, standard annual edit and internal checks, researching questions, resolving question responses, checking post-submission edits, filing post-submission documents, creating public loan application register, distributing public loan application register, distributing disclosure report, and using vendor HMS software.
3. Compliance and internal audits: Training, internal audits, and external audits.
4. HMDA-related exams: Exam preparation and exam assistance.
All these tasks are related to the preparation of reports or records and most of them are performed by compliance personnel in the compliance department of financial institutions. For some financial
The type of professional skills required for compliance varies depending on the particular task involved. For example, data transcribing requires data entry skills. Transferring data to an HMS and using vendor HMS software requires knowledge of computer systems and the ability to use them. Researching and resolving reportability questions requires a more complex understanding of the regulatory requirements and the details of the relevant line of business. Geocoding requires skills in using the geocoding software, web systems, or, in cases where geocoding is difficult, knowledge of the local area in which the property is located. Standard annual editing, internal checks, and post-submission editing require knowledge of the relevant data systems, data formats, and HMDA regulatory requirements in addition to skills in quality control and assurance. Filing post-submission documents, creating public loan application registers, and distributing public loan application registers and disclosure reports requires skills in information creation, dissemination, and communication. Training, internal audits, and external audits requires communications skills, educational skills, and regulatory knowledge. HMDA-related exam preparation and exam assistance involve knowledge of regulatory requirements, the relevant line of business, and the relevant data systems.
The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code has compliance officers listed under code 13–1041. The Bureau believes that most of the skills required for preparation of the reports or records related to this proposal are the skills required for job functions performed in this occupation. However, the Bureau recognizes that under this general occupational code there is a high level of heterogeneity in the type of skills required as well as the corresponding labor costs incurred by the financial institutions performing these functions.
During the SBREFA process, some small entity representatives noted that due to the small size of their institutions, they do not have separate compliance departments exclusively dedicated to HMDA compliance. Their HMDA compliance personnel are often engaged in other corporate compliance functions. To the extent that the compliance personnel of a small entity are divided between HMDA compliance and other functions, the skills required for those personnel may differ from the skills required for fully-dedicated HMDA compliance personnel. For instance, some small entity representatives noted that high-level corporate officers such as CEOs and senior vice presidents could be directly involved in some HMDA tasks. The Bureau seeks comment regarding the skills required for the preparation of the reports or records related to this proposed rule.
Due to the proposed changes, the Bureau acknowledges the possibility that certain aspects of the proposed rule may require some small entities to hire additional compliance staff. The Bureau has no evidence that such additional staff will possess a qualitatively different set of professional skills than small entity staff employed currently for HMDA purposes. It is possible, however, that compliance with the proposed rule may emphasize certain skills. For example, additional data points may increase demand for skills involved in researching questions, standard annual editing, and post-submission editing. On the other hand, the Bureau is separately considering operational enhancements and modifications to alleviate some of the compliance burden. For example, the Bureau is considering working to consolidate the outlets for assistance, providing guidance support similar to the guidance provided for Title XIV rules; improving points of contact processes for help inquiries; modifying the types of edits and when edits are approved; exploring opportunities to improve the current DES; and considering approaches to reduce geocoding burdens. Such enhancements may also change the relative composition of HMDA compliance personnel and the skills involved in recording and reporting data. Nevertheless, the Bureau believes that compliance would still involve the general set of skills identified above.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with this proposal would also involve skills for information technology system development, integration, and maintenance. Financial institutions often use the HMS for HMDA purpose. HMS could be developed by the institution internally or purchased from a third-party vendor. Under the proposed rule, the Bureau anticipates that most of these systems would need substantial upgrades to comply with the proposed requirements. It is possible that other systems used by financial institutions, such as loan origination systems, might also need upgrades to be compatible with the upgraded HMS. The professional skills required for this one-time upgrade would be related to software development, testing, system engineering, information technology project management, budgeting and operation.
Based on feedback from the small entity representatives, many small business HMDA reporters rely on FFIEC DES tools and do not use a dedicated HMS. The Bureau is separately considering upgrades to the HMDA DES, such as moving DES to the web, which would allow financial institutions to use the software from multiple terminals in different branches and might reduce the required information technology implementation cost for small financial institutions that choose to employ this new web-based DES.
The proposed rule contains requirements related to the disclosure of mortgage loan information by certain financial institutions. The Bureau has identified certain other Federal rules that relate in some fashion to these areas and has considered the extent to which they may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposal.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), implemented by Office of Comptroller of the Currency, Board, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation regulations requires some financial institutions to collect, maintain, and report certain data about small business, farm, and consumer lending to ensure they are serving their communities. HMDA data are frequently used in CRA exams as part of evaluating home mortgage lending under the CRA
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), implemented by the Bureau's Regulation B (12 CFR part 1002), among other things, prohibits creditors from discriminating in credit transactions and requires creditors to notify applicants of reasons for denial and provide copies of appraisals for certain home-secured loans. Regulation B requires creditors to collect race, ethnicity, sex, marital status, and age of applicants for some home purchase loans and refinancings and to maintain that information for 25 months for purposes of monitoring compliance with antidiscrimination laws. One of HMDA's purposes is to provide data that can be used to assist in enforcing antidiscrimination statutes, which include ECOA.
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), implemented by the Bureau's Regulation Z (12 CFR part 1026) and Regulation X (12 CFR part 1024), provide protections to consumers who apply for and receive mortgage loans. These protections include disclosures and restrictions on certain types of transactions. The Bureau recently issued a final rule on integrated mortgage disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z). The Bureau has considered the definitions, requirements, and purposes of TILA and RESPA as it developed its proposals under Regulation C.
Proposed Regulation AB II (17 CFR part 229, subpart 229.1100) from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would require private issuers of asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed securities, to disclose certain asset-level information.
The Fair Housing Home Loan Data System (12 CFR part 27), promulgated by the OCC, provides for a data collection system for monitoring national bank compliance with the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. Under the regulations governing the Fair Housing Loan Data System, financial institutions generally maintain these data in a format similar to that currently prescribed under Regulation C, except that financial institutions are required to report the reasons for denial on the loan application register.
The Bureau requests comment to identify any additional such Federal rules that impose duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting requirements on servicers and potential changes to the proposed rules in light of duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting requirements.
The small entity representatives generally were receptive to the Bureau's proposals to modernize and streamline the HMDA data collection and reporting processes, but expressed some concerns about the proposals under consideration to add new data points to the HMDA reporting requirements. Where the small entity representatives expressed concern about the costs of complying with a proposed provision, the Bureau considered alternatives that might impose lower costs on small entities. One component of this consideration was to ensure that any alternative would accomplish the stated objectives of HMDA.
The uniform standard promotes simplicity and clarity, an objective of the proposal, and was generally favored by the small entity representatives. Many small entity representatives suggested a higher coverage threshold, with recommendations ranging from 100 to 500 loans. The Bureau understands that some burden reduction may result from a threshold higher than 25 loans. However, the Bureau was concerned that a higher threshold would result in the elimination of data that are important in fulfilling the purposes of HMDA. Therefore, the Bureau is proposing a threshold of 25 loans.
The Bureau is seeking comment on whether it should eliminate the requirement that the modified loan application register be made available to the public by smaller institutions. During the Small Business Review Panel process, the Bureau heard from small entity representatives that they rarely, if ever, receive requests for their modified loan application registers. The Small Business Review Panel recommended that the Bureau consider whether there is a continued need for small institutions to make their modified loan application registers available. Accordingly, the Bureau is soliciting comment on whether institutions should be excluded from the obligation to make their modified loan application registers available to the public, and, if so, which institutions should be excluded.
Section 603(d) of the RFA requires the Bureau to consult with small entities regarding the potential impact of the proposed rule on the cost of credit for small entities and related matters.
Following microeconomic principles, the Bureau believes that financial institutions will pass on increased variable costs to future mortgage applicants, but absorb one-time costs and increased fixed costs if financial institutions are profit maximizers and the market is perfectly competitive. Overall, the Bureau estimates that the impact of the proposed rule on variable costs per application is approximately $13 for a representative tier 3 financial institution, $0.20 for a representative tier 2 financial institution, and $0.11 for a representative tier 1 financial institution.
At the time the Bureau circulated the Small Business Review Panel outreach materials to the small entity representatives in advance of the Panel Outreach Meeting, it believed that the proposals under consideration would result in a minimal increase in the cost of business credit for small entities. Although the proposals would apply primarily to mortgage loans obtained by consumers for personal, family, or household purposes, the proposals under consideration would also cover certain dwelling-secured loans used for business purposes.
At the Small Business Review Panel Outreach Meeting, the Bureau asked the small entity representatives a series of questions regarding the cost of business credit.
The small entity representatives had few comments on the impact on the cost of business credit. Not all of the small entity representatives made loans to small businesses. One credit union small entity representatives, however, noted that many of its home-equity loans are used by individuals to fund a business. Two bank small entity representatives stated that a high percentage of their loans are small business or commercial loans where homes are typically used as additional collateral. These two small entity representatives explained that, because competition for loans currently is strong, they have to absorb extra costs. One of these small entity representatives also stated that so far it has improved efficiency to cut costs and has not imposed a regulatory compliance fee or marketed its data, as have other financial institutions, to offset compliance costs. A few small entity representatives noted that they would likely have to pass additional costs on to business customers. A third bank small entity representative stated that it charges a loan documentation fee to its commercial clients, but because borrowers are fee-sensitive, the financial institution could lose business with additional fees. When asked, the small entity representatives did not identify significant alternatives to any of the proposals under consideration that might minimize the impact on the cost of credit for small entities while accomplishing the statutory objectives addressed by the proposals under consideration.
Based on the feedback obtained from small entity representatives at the Panel Outreach Meeting, the Bureau currently anticipates that the proposed rule will result in a minimal increase in the cost of credit for small business entities. To further evaluate this question, the Bureau solicits comment on whether the proposed rule will have any impact on the cost of credit for small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Bureau conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on the revised information collection requirements in accordance with the PRA.
As described below, the proposal would amend the information collection requirements contained in Regulation C
The title of this information collection is Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C). The frequency of response is annually, quarterly, and on-occasion. The Bureau's regulation would require covered financial institutions that meet certain thresholds to maintain data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in originations, to update the information quarterly, and to report the information annually or quarterly. Financial institutions must also make certain information available to the public upon request.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule would be mandatory.
For the purposes of this PRA analysis, the Bureau estimates that, under the proposal, approximately 1,600 depository institutions that currently report HMDA data would no longer be required to report, and that approximately 450 more nondepository institutions would now be required to report. In 2012, approximately 7,400 financial institutions reported data under HMDA. The proposed coverage changes would reduce the number of reporters by an estimated 1,150 reporters for an estimated total of approximately 6,250. Under the proposal, the Bureau generally would account for the paperwork burden for all respondents under Regulation C. Using the Bureau's burden estimation methodology, which projects the estimated burden on several types of representative respondents to the entire market, the Bureau believes the total estimated industry burden for the approximately 6,250 respondents
197 financial institutions reported HMDA data to the Bureau in 2012. Currently, only depository institutions with over $10 billion in assets and their affiliates report their HMDA data to the Bureau. Given their large asset size, it is reasonable to believe that Bureau reporters are most likely aligned with the representative tier 1 institution.
The Bureau believes the following aspects of the proposed rule would be information collection requirements under the PRA: (1) The requirement that financial institutions maintain loan application register information for three years, disclosure statements for five years, and update information regarding reportable transactions quarterly; (2) the requirement that financial institutions report HMDA data annually—or, in the case of financial institutions with at least 75,000 loan application register entries for the preceding calendar year, quarterly—to the Bureau or to the appropriate Federal agency; and (3) the requirement that financial institutions provide modified loan application registers to the public upon request, and provide notices that clearly convey that disclosure statements may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site.
Financial institutions are required to maintain loan application register information for three years and disclosure statements for five years. The proposed rule would not modify the recordkeeping period for covered financial institutions, or increase the documentation or non-data-specific information that financial institutions would have to maintain. The proposed rule would increase the number of data fields, and possibly the number of records, that financial institutions are required to gather and report. The Bureau estimates that the current time burden of reporting for the Bureau reporters is approximately 810,000 hours per year. The Bureau estimates that, with the proposed changes and the operations modernization, the time burden for annual and quarterly Bureau reporters would be approximately 766,000 and 77,000 hours per year, respectively, for a total estimate of approximately 843,000 burden hours per year. This represents an increase of approximately 33,000 burden hours.
HMDA is a data reporting statute, so most provisions of the proposed rule affect reporting requirements, as described above. Specifically, financial institutions are required to report HMDA data to the Bureau or to the appropriate Federal agency.
The Bureau estimates that the current time burden of reporting for the Bureau reporters is approximately 971,000 hours per year. The Bureau estimates that, with the proposed changes and the operations modernization, the time burden for annual and quarterly Bureau
The proposed rule would modify Regulation C's requirements for financial institutions to disclose information to third parties. Covered financial institutions would continue to make their modified loan application registers available to the public upon request, but, as described above, the modified loan application register would be limited to the data that are currently released under Regulation C. Additionally, the proposed rule would allow financial institutions to provide their disclosure statements to the public by making available a notice that clearly conveys that the disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address.
The Bureau estimates that the current time burden of disclosure for the Bureau reporters is approximately 6,000 hours per year. The Bureau estimates that, with the proposed changes and the operations modernization, the time burden for annual and quarterly Bureau reporters would be approximately 7,000 and 1,000 hours per year, respectively, for a total estimate of approximately 8,000 burden hours per year. This represents an increase of approximately 2,000 burden hours.
Financial institutions' management, legal, and compliance personnel will likely take time to learn new reporting requirements and assess legal and compliance risks. Financial institutions that use vendors for HMDA compliance will incur one-time costs associated with software installation, troubleshooting, and testing. The Bureau is aware that these activities will require time and that the costs may be sensitive to the time available for them. Financial institutions that maintain their own reporting systems will incur one-time costs to develop, prepare, and implement necessary modifications to those systems. In all cases, financial institutions will need to update training materials to reflect new requirements and activities and may have certain one-time costs for providing initial training to current employees.
For current HMDA reporters, the Bureau estimates that the proposed rule will impose on average one-time costs of $3,000 for tier 3 financial institutions, $250,000 for tier 2 financial institutions and $800,000 for tier 1 financial institutions without considering the expansion of transactional coverage to include open-end lines of credit and reverse mortgages.
The proposed revisions to the institutional coverage criteria will require an estimated 450 nondepository institutions that are currently not reporting under HMDA to begin reporting. These nondepository institutions will incur start-up costs to develop policies and procedures, infrastructure, and training. Based on outreach discussions with financial institutions, the Bureau believes that these start-up costs will be similar to the one-time costs current reporters will incur in response to the proposed rule, which average $3,000 for tier 3 financial institutions, $375,000 for tier 2 financial institutions, and $1,200,000 for tier 1 financial institutions. Although origination volumes for these 450 nondepository institutions are slightly higher, the Bureau still expects most of these nondepository institutions to be tier 3 financial institutions. Under this assumption, the estimated overall market cost would be $1,350,000.
The tables below summarize the estimated annual burdens under Regulation C associated with the information collections described above for Bureau reporters and all HMDA reporters, respectively. The tables combine all three aspects of information collection: Reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements. The Paperwork Reduction Act Supporting Statement that corresponds with this proposal provides more information as to how these estimates were derived and further detail regarding the burden hours associated with each information collection. The first table presents burden hour estimates for financial institutions that report HMDA data to the Bureau, and the second table provides information for all HMDA reporters.
Comments are specifically requested concerning: (i) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collections of information; (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) how to minimize the burden of complying with the proposed collections of information, including the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, should be sent to: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC, 20503, or by the Internet to
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Savings associations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection proposes to amend Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
(c)
(b)
(2)
(i) Conditions that require the identification of a suitable property;
(ii) Conditions that require that no material change has occurred in the applicant's financial condition or creditworthiness prior to closing; and
(iii) Limited conditions that are not related to the financial condition or creditworthiness of the applicant that the financial institution ordinarily attaches to a traditional home mortgage application.
(c)
(1) Any office of a depository financial institution, as defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, that is considered a branch by the Federal or State supervisory agency applicable to that financial institution, excluding automated teller machines and other free-standing electronic terminals; and
(2) Any office of a nondepository financial institution, as defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, that takes applications from the public for covered loans. A nondepository financial institution is also deemed to have a branch office in an MSA or in an MD, if, in the preceding calendar year, it received applications for, originated, or purchased five or more covered loans related to property located in that MSA or MD, respectively.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(i) On the preceding December 31 had assets in excess of the asset threshold established and published annually by the Bureau for coverage by the Act, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, not seasonally adjusted, for each twelve month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million;
(ii) On the preceding December 31, had a home or branch office in an MSA;
(iii) In the preceding calendar year, originated at least one home purchase loan or refinancing of a home purchase loan, secured by a first lien on a one-to four-unit dwelling;
(iv) Meets one or more of the following three criteria:
(A) The institution is Federally insured or regulated;
(B) The loan referred to in paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section was insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a Federal agency; or
(C) The loan referred to in paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section was intended by the institution for sale to the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
(v) In the preceding calendar year, originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit; and
(2)
(i) On the preceding December 31, had a home or branch office in an MSA; and
(ii) In the preceding calendar year, originated at least 25 covered loans, excluding open-end lines of credit.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(n)
(o)
(1) Is an open-end credit plan as defined in § 1026.2(a)(20) of Regulation Z, but without regard to whether the credit is for personal, family, or household purposes, without regard to whether the person to whom credit is extended is a consumer, and without regard to whether the person extending credit is a creditor, as those terms are defined under Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026;
(2) Is secured by a lien on a dwelling, as defined under paragraph (f) of this section;
(3) Is not a reverse mortgage under paragraph (q) of this section; and
(4) Is not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c).
(p)
(q)
(1) Is a reverse mortgage transaction as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.33(a); and
(2) Is not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c).
(c)
(1) A loan originated or purchased by the financial institution acting in a fiduciary capacity;
(2) A loan secured by a lien on unimproved land;
(3) Temporary financing;
(4) The purchase of an interest in a pool of loans;
(5) The purchase solely of the right to service loans;
(6) The purchase of loans as part of a merger or acquisition, or as part of the acquisition of all of the assets and liabilities of a branch office as defined in § 1003.2(c);
(7) A loan or application for which the total dollar amount is less than $500;
(8) The purchase of a partial interest in a covered loan; or
(9) A loan used primarily for agricultural purposes.
The revisions and addtions read as follows:
(a)
(1)(i) A universal loan identifier (ULI) for the covered loan or application that can be used to retrieve the covered loan or application file. For covered loans or applications for which any financial institution has previously reported a ULI under this part, the ULI shall consist of the ULI that was previously reported for the covered loan or application under this part. For all other covered loans and applications, the ULI shall:
(A) Begin with the financial institution's Legal Entity Identifier described in § 1003.5(a)(3); and
(B) Follow the Legal Entity Identifier described in § 1003.5(a)(3) with up to 25 additional characters to identify the covered loan or application, which:
(
(
(
(ii) Except for purchased covered loans, the date the application was received or the date shown on the application form.
(2) Whether the covered loan or application is insured under title II of the National Housing Act, is insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, or is guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38 of the United States Code.
(3) Whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a home purchase loan, a home improvement loan, a refinancing, or for a purpose other than home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing.
(4) Whether the application is a request for preapproval for a home purchase loan.
(5) Whether the construction method for the dwelling related to the property identified in paragraph (a)(9) of this section is site built or a manufactured home.
(6) Whether the property identified in paragraph (a)(9) of this section is or will be used by the applicant or borrower as a principal residence, as a second residence, or as an investment property.
(7) The amount of the covered loan or the amount applied for, as applicable.
(i) For a closed-end mortgage loan, other than a purchased loan or an assumption, the amount of the covered loan is the amount to be repaid as disclosed on the legal obligation. For a purchased closed-end mortgage loan or an assumption of a closed-end mortgage loan, the amount of the covered loan is the unpaid principal balance on the covered loan or assumption at the time of purchase or assumption.
(ii) For an open-end line of credit, including a purchased open-end line of credit or an assumption of an open-end line of credit, the amount of the covered loan is the amount of credit available to the borrower under the terms of the plan.
(iii) For a reverse mortgage, the amount of the covered loan is the initial principal limit, as determined pursuant to section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–20) and implementing regulations and mortgagee letters prescribed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(9) The following information about the location of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan:
(i) The postal address; and
(ii) If the property is located in an MSA or MD in which the financial institution has a home or branch office, the location of the property by:
(A) State;
(B) County;
(C) MSA or MD; and
(D) Census tract if the property is located in a county with a population of more than 30,000 according to the most recent decennial census conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
(10) The following information about the applicant or borrower:
(i) Ethnicity, race, sex, and age; and
(ii) Gross annual income relied on in making the credit decision requiring consideration of income or, if a credit decision requiring consideration of income was not made, the gross annual income collected as part of the application process.
(11) The type of entity purchasing a covered loan that the financial institution originates or purchases and then sells within the same calendar year.
(12)(i) For covered loans subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, other than purchased covered loans and reverse mortgages, the difference between the covered loan's annual
(13) For covered loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, as implemented in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32, whether the covered loan is a high-cost mortgage under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32(a), and the reason that the covered loan is a high-cost mortgage, if applicable.
(14) The priority of the lien against the property identified under paragraph (a)(9) of this section.
(15)(i) Except for purchased covered loans, the credit score or scores relied on in making the credit decision and the name and version of the scoring model used to generate each credit score.
(ii) “Credit score” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1681g(f)(2)(A).
(16) The reason(s) the financial institution denied the application.
(17) For covered loans or applications subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, as implemented in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32, or covered loans or applications subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.43(e)(2)(iii), other than purchased covered loans, the total points and fees payable in connection with the covered loan or application, expressed in dollars and calculated in accordance with Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32(b)(1) or (2), as applicable.
(18) For covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f), the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing, expressed in dollars, as disclosed pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.38(f)(1).
(19) For covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f), the points designated as paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate, expressed in dollars, as described in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.37(f)(1)(i).
(20) For covered loans subject to the disclosure requirements in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.19(f), other than purchased covered loans, the interest rate that the borrower would receive if the borrower paid no bona fide discount points, as calculated pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32.
(21) The interest rate that is or would be applicable to the covered loan at closing or account opening.
(22) Except for purchased covered loans, the term in months of any prepayment penalty, as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.32(b)(6)(i) or (ii), as applicable.
(23) For a covered loan that is not, or an application that is not for, a reverse mortgage, the ratio of the applicant's or borrower's total monthly debt to the total monthly income relied on in making the credit decision.
(24) The ratio of the total amount of debt secured by the property to the value of the property, determined as follows:
(i) For a covered loan that is a home-equity line of credit, by dividing the sum of the unpaid principal balance of the first mortgage, the full amount of any home-equity line of credit (whether drawn or undrawn), and the balance of any other subordinate financing by the property value identified in paragraph (a)(28) of this section;
(ii) For a covered loan that is not a home-equity line of credit, by dividing the combined unpaid principal balance amounts of the first and all subordinate mortgages, excluding undrawn home-equity lines of credit amounts, by the property value identified in paragraph (a)(28) of this section.
(25) The scheduled number of months after which the legal obligation will mature or would have matured.
(26) The number of months until the first date the interest rate may change after loan origination.
(27) Whether the contractual terms include or would have included any of the following:
(i) A balloon payment as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.18(s)(5)(i);
(ii) Interest-only payments as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.18(s)(7)(iv);
(iii) A contractual term that would cause the covered loan to be a negative amortization loan as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.18(s)(7)(v); or
(iv) Any other contractual term that would allow for payments other than fully amortizing payments, as defined in Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.43(b)(2), during the loan term, other than the terms described in paragraphs (a)(27)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.
(28) The value of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan relied on in making the credit decision.
(29) If the dwelling related to the property identified in paragraph (a)(9) of this section is a manufactured home, whether it is legally classified as real property or as personal property.
(30) If the dwelling related to the property identified in paragraph (a)(9) of this section is a manufactured home, whether the applicant or borrower owns the land on which it is or will be located through a direct or indirect ownership interest or leases the land through a paid or unpaid leasehold.
(31) The number of individual dwelling units related to the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan.
(32) If the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan includes a multifamily dwelling, the number of individual dwelling units related to the property that are income-restricted pursuant to Federal, State, or local affordable housing programs.
(33) Except for purchased covered loans, the following information about the application channel of the covered loan or application:
(i) Whether the applicant or borrower submitted the application for the covered loan directly to the financial institution; and
(ii) Whether the obligation arising from the covered loan was, or in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to the financial institution.
(34) For a covered loan or application, the unique identifier assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR ID) for the mortgage loan originator, as defined in Regulation G, 12 CFR 1007.102, or Regulation H, 12 CFR 1008.23, as applicable.
(35)(i) Except for purchased covered loans, the name of the automated underwriting system used by the financial institution to evaluate the application and the recommendation generated by that automated underwriting system.
(ii) For purposes of this section, an automated underwriting system means an electronic tool developed by a securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor that provides a recommendation regarding whether the application is eligible to be purchased, insured, or guaranteed by that securitizer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor.
(36) Whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a reverse mortgage, as defined in § 1003.2(q), and whether the reverse mortgage is an open- or closed-end transaction.
(37) Whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, an open-end line of credit, as defined in § 1003.2(o), and whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a home-equity line of credit, as defined in § 1003.2(h).
(38) Whether the covered loan is subject to the ability-to-repay provisions of Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.43, and whether the covered loan is a qualified
(39) For a home-equity line of credit and an open-end reverse mortgage, the amount of the draw on the covered loan, if any, made at account opening.
(b)
(2) Ethnicity, race, sex, age, and income data may but need not be collected for covered loans purchased by the financial institution.
(f)
(a)
(ii) Effective [x], within 60 calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter, a financial institution that reported at least 75,000 covered loans, applications, and purchased covered loans, combined, for the preceding calendar year shall submit its loan application register containing all data required to be recorded for that quarter pursuant to § 1003.4(f). The financial institution shall submit its quarterly loan application register in electronic format to the Bureau or to the appropriate Federal agency for the financial institution in accordance with the instructions in appendix A to this part. The financial institution shall retain a copy of its complete loan application register for its records for at least three years.
(iii) An officer of the financial institution shall certify to the accuracy of data submitted.
(3) When reporting its data, a financial institution shall provide a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) for the financial institution issued by:
(i) A utility endorsed by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee; or
(ii) A utility endorsed or otherwise governed by the Global LEI Foundation (GLEIF) (or any successor of the GLEIF) after the GLEIF assumes operational governance of the global LEI system.
(4) When reporting its data, a financial institution shall identify its parent company, if any.
(b)
(2) No later than three business days after receiving notice that its disclosure statement is available, a financial institution shall make its disclosure statement available to the public by making available at its home office and each branch office located in each MSA and each MD a notice that clearly conveys that the institution's disclosure statement may be obtained on the FFIEC Web site and that includes the FFIEC's Web site address.
(c)
(i) Removing the information required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(1), the date required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(8), the postal address required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(9), the age of the applicant or borrower required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(10), and the information required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(15) and (a)(17) through (39); and
(ii) Rounding the information required to be reported under § 1003.4(a)(7) to the nearest thousand.
(2) A financial institution shall make available its loan application register, modified as required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, following the calendar year for which the data are compiled, as follows:
(i) By March 31 for a request received on or before March 1; and
(ii) Within 30 calendar days for a request received after March 1.
(3) The modified loan application register made available pursuant to this paragraph (c) need contain data relating to only the MSA or MD for which the request is made.
(d)
(2) A financial institution may impose a reasonable fee for any cost incurred in providing or reproducing its data.
(e)
(f)
This report is required by law (12 U.S.C. 2801–2810 and 12 CFR 1003). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. See 12 CFR 1003.1(a) for the valid OMB Control Numbers applicable to this information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the respective agencies and to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20503. Be sure to reference the applicable agency and the OMB Control Number, as found in 12 CFR 1003.1(a), when submitting comments to OMB.
1.
1. Enter the ULI assigned to the covered loan or application.
1. Enter the date the application was received or the date shown on the application form by year, month, and day, using numerals in the form YYYYMMDD. Enter “NA” for covered loans purchased by your institution.
1. Indicate the type of covered loan or application by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. Use Code 2 if the covered loan or application is insured under title II of the National Housing Act.
b. Use Code 3 if the covered loan or application is guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38 of the United States Code.
c. Use Code 4 if the covered loan or application is insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949.
d. Use Code 1 if the covered loan or application is not insured under title II of the National Housing Act, not insured under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, and not guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38 of the United States Code.
1. Indicate the purpose of the loan or application by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. For refinancings, enter Code 4 if, under the terms of the agreement, you were unconditionally obligated to refinance the obligation, or you were obligated to refinance the obligation subject to conditions within the borrower's control.
1. Indicate whether the application or covered loan involved a request for preapproval for a home purchase loan by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. Enter Code 1 if your institution has a preapproval program as defined in § 1003.2(b)(2) and the applicant requests a preapproval for a home purchase loan. Do not use Code 1 if a request for preapproval is withdrawn or for requests for preapproval that are closed for incompleteness; such preapproval requests are not reported under HMDA as implemented by Regulation C.
b. Enter Code 2 if your institution has a preapproval program as defined in § 1003.2(b)(2) but the applicant does not request a preapproval.
c. Enter Code 3 if your institution does not have a preapproval program as defined in § 1003.2(b)(2).
d. Enter Code 3 for applications for or originations of home improvement loans, refinancings, open-end lines of credit, home-equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages, and for purchased loans.
1. Indicate the construction method for the dwelling related to the covered loan or application by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. Enter Code 1 if most of the dwelling's elements were created at the dwelling's permanent site (including the use of prefabricated components), or if the dwelling is a modular or other factory-built home (including a modular home with a permanent metal chassis) that does not meet the definition of a manufactured home under § 1003.2(l).
b. Enter Code 2 if the dwelling meets the definition of a manufactured home under § 1003.2(l).
c. Enter Code 3 for a dwelling that is not site built or a manufactured home under § 1003.2(l).
1. Indicate the occupancy status of the property to which the covered loan or application relates by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. For purchased loans, use Code 1 unless the application or documents for the covered loan indicate that the property will not be occupied as a principal residence.
b. Use Code 2 for second homes or vacation homes.
c. Use Code 3 for investment properties that are owned for the purpose of generating income by renting the property.
d. Use Code 4 for investment properties that are not owned for the purpose of generating income by renting the property.
1. Enter the amount of the covered loan or the amount applied for, as applicable, in dollars.
1. Type of Action. Indicate the type of action taken on the application or covered loan by using one of the following Codes.
a. Use Code 1 for a covered loan that is originated, including one resulting from a request for preapproval.
b. For a counteroffer (your offer to the applicant to make the covered loan on different terms or in a different amount from the terms or amount applied for), use Code 1 if the applicant accepts. Use Code 3 if the applicant turns down the counteroffer or does not respond.
c. Use Code 2 when the application is approved but the applicant (or the party that initially received the application) fails to respond to your notification of approval or your commitment letter within the specific time. Do not use this Code for a preapproval request.
d. Use Code 4 only when the application is expressly withdrawn by the applicant before satisfying all underwriting or creditworthiness conditions and before the institution denies the application or closes the file for incompleteness. Do not use Code 4 if a request for preapproval is withdrawn; preapproval requests that are withdrawn are not reported under HMDA.
e. Use Code 5 if you sent a written notice of incompleteness under § 1002.9(c)(2) of Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and the applicant did not respond to your request for additional information within the period of time specified in your notice. Do not use this Code for requests for preapproval that are incomplete; these preapproval requests are not reported under HMDA.
2. Date of Action. Enter the date of action taken by year, month, and day, using numerals in the form YYYYMMDD.
a. For covered loans originated, enter the settlement or closing date.
b. For covered loans purchased, enter the date of purchase by your institution.
c. For applications and preapprovals denied, applications and preapprovals approved but not accepted by the applicant, and files closed for incompleteness, enter the date that the action was taken by your institution or the date the notice was sent to the applicant.
d. For applications withdrawn, enter the date you received the applicant's express withdrawal, whether received in writing or orally, or enter the date shown on the notification from the applicant, in the case of a written withdrawal.
e. For preapprovals that lead to a loan origination, enter the date of the origination.
1. Property Location Information. Enter the following information about the location of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan:
a. Street Address. Enter the street address of the property.
i. For originations and purchases, the address must correspond to the property identified on the legal obligation related to the covered loan. For applications that did not result in an origination, the address must
ii. Include, as applicable, the address number, the street name, the street direction, address unit designators, and the address unit value, using U.S. Postal Service official abbreviations. For example, 100 N Main St Apt 1.
iii. Do not enter a post office box.
iv. Enter “NA” only if the street address is not known. For example, if the property does not have a postal address at closing or if the applicant did not provide the postal address of the property to the financial institution before the application was denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness.
b. City Name. Enter the name of the city.
i. Enter “NA” only if the city location is not known. For example, if the property does not have a postal address at closing or if the applicant did not provide the postal address of the property to the financial institution before the application was denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness.
c. State Code. Enter the two letter State code for the applicable State, using the U.S. Postal Service official State abbreviations.
d. Zip Code. Enter the zip code. The zip code may be five or nine digits. Do not enter dashes.
i. Enter “NA” only if the zip code is not known. For example, if the property does not have a postal address at closing or if the applicant did not provide the postal address of the property to the financial institution before the application was denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness.
e. Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or Metropolitan Division (MD). Enter the five-digit MSA or MD number if the MSA is divided into MDs. MSA and MD boundaries and five-digit codes are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Use the boundaries and codes that were in effect on January 1 of the calendar year for which you are reporting.
i. Enter “NA” if the property is not located in an MSA or an MD.
f. County. Enter the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) three-digit numerical code for the county. These codes are available from the appropriate Federal agency to which you report data.
g. Census Tract. Enter the census tract number. Census tract numbers are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Use the boundaries and codes that were in effect on January 1 of the calendar year for which you are reporting.
i. You may enter “NA” if the property is located in a county with a population of 30,000 or less according to the most recent decennial census conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
2. Certain Location Information not Required. If your institution is not required to report data for CRA purposes under § 1003.4(e), you may elect to enter “NA” for County, MSA, and census tract for entries related to properties that are not located in the MSAs or MDs in which you have a home or branch office.
1. Appendix B to this part contains instructions for the collection of data on ethnicity, race, and sex, and also contains a sample form for data collection.
2. Applicability. Report this information for covered loans that you originate as well as for applications that do not result in an origination.
a. You need not collect or report this information for covered loans purchased. If you choose not to report this information for covered loans that you purchase, use the Codes for “not applicable.”
b. If the borrower or applicant is not a natural person (a corporation, partnership, or trust, for example), use the Codes for “not applicable.”
1. Ethnicity of Borrower or Applicant. Use the following Codes to indicate the ethnicity of the applicant or borrower under column “A” and of any co-applicant or co-borrower under column “CA.”
2. Race of Borrower or Applicant. Use the following Codes to indicate the race of the applicant or borrower under column “A” and of any co-applicant or co-borrower under column “CA.”
a. If an applicant selects more than one racial designation, enter all Codes corresponding to the applicant's selections.
b. Use Code 3 (for ethnicity) and Code 6 (for race) if the applicant or co-applicant does not provide the information in an application taken by mail, internet, or telephone.
c. Use Code 4 (for ethnicity) and Code 7 (for race) for “not applicable” only when the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person or when applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by your institution.
d. If there is more than one co-applicant, provide the required information only for the first co-applicant listed on the application form. If there are no co-applicants or co-borrowers, use Code 5 (for ethnicity) and Code 8 (for race) for “no co-applicant” in the co-applicant column.
3. Sex of Borrower or Applicant. Use the following Codes to indicate the sex of the applicant or borrower under column “A” and of any co-applicant or co-borrower under column “CA.”
a. Use Code 3 if the applicant or co-applicant does not provide the information in an application taken by mail, internet, or telephone.
b. Use Code 4 for “not applicable” only when the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person or when applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by your institution.
c. If there is more than one co-applicant, provide the required information only for the first co-applicant listed on the application form. If there are no co-applicants or co-borrowers, use Code 5 for “no co-applicant” in the co-applicant column.
4. Age of Borrower or Applicant. Enter the age of the applicant or borrower, as of the date of application, derived from the date of birth as shown on the application form, in number of years under column “A” and of any co-applicant or co-borrower under column “CA.” Or, use the following Codes as applicable.
a. Use Code 1 for “not applicable” only when the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person or when applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by your institution.
b. If there is more than one co-applicant, provide the required information only for the first co-applicant listed on the application form. If there are no co-applicants or co-borrowers, use Code 2 for “no co-applicant” in the co-applicant column.
1. Income. Enter the gross annual income that your institution relied on in making the credit decision requiring consideration of income or, if the application was denied or withdrawn or the file was closed for incompleteness before a credit decision requiring consideration of income was made, the gross annual income collected as part of the application process.
a. Round all dollar amounts to the nearest thousand (round $500 up to the next $1,000), and show in thousands. For example, report $35,500 as 36.
b. For a covered loan or application related to a multifamily dwelling, enter “NA.”
c. If no income information is collected as part of the application process or the covered loan applied for would not or did not require consideration of income, enter “NA.”
d. If the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person or the applicant or co-applicant information is unavailable because the covered loan has been purchased by your institution, enter “NA.”
1. Enter the applicable Code to indicate whether a covered loan that your institution originated or purchased was then sold to a secondary market entity within the same calendar year:
a. Use Code 0 for applications that were denied, withdrawn, or approved but not accepted by the applicant; and for files closed for incompleteness.
b. Use Code 0 if you originated or purchased a covered loan and did not sell it during that same calendar year. For purposes of recording the type of purchaser within 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter pursuant to § 1003.4(f), use Code 0 if you originated or purchased a covered loan and did not sell it during the calendar quarter for which you are recording the data. If you sell the covered loan in a subsequent quarter of the same calendar year, use the appropriate code for the type of purchaser on your loan application register for the quarter in which the covered loan was sold. If you sell the covered loan in a succeeding year, you need not report the sale.
c. Use Code 2 if you conditionally assign a covered loan to Ginnie Mae in connection with a mortgage-backed security transaction.
d. Use Code 5 for private securitizations by purchasers other than by one of the government-sponsored enterprises identified in Codes 1 through 4. If you know or reasonably believe that the covered loan you are selling will be securitized by the institution purchasing the covered loan, then use Code 5 regardless of the type or affiliation of the purchasing institution.
e. Use Code 8 for covered loans sold to an institution affiliated with you, such as your subsidiary or a subsidiary of your parent corporation. For purposes of § 1003.4(a)(11), the term “affiliate” means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, another company, as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
1. Enter the rate spread to three decimal places and use a leading zero, or two leading zeroes, if the rate is less than 1 percent. If the APR exceeds the APOR, enter a positive value. For example, enter 03.295. If the APOR exceeds the APR, enter a negative value. For example, enter −03.295. If the difference between the annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate is a figure with more than three decimal places, round the figure to three decimal places.
2. Enter “NA” in the case of a covered loan not subject to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, a reverse mortgage, a loan that you purchased or assumed, or an application that does not result in a loan origination or the opening of a line of credit, except for applications that have been approved but not accepted by the applicant.
1. For a covered loan that you originated or purchased that is a high-cost mortgage under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), as implemented in Regulation Z § 1026.32, use the following Codes as applicable:
a. Enter Code 1 if the annual percentage rate for the transaction exceeds the high-cost mortgage thresholds.
b. Enter Code 2 if the points and fees for the transaction exceed the high-cost mortgage thresholds.
c. Enter Code 3 if both the annual percentage rate and the points and fees for the transaction exceed the high-cost mortgage thresholds.
d. Enter Code 4 in all other cases. For example, enter Code 4 for a covered loan that you originated or purchased that is not a high-cost mortgage for any reason, including because the transaction is not subject to coverage under HOEPA (
1. Enter the applicable Code for covered loans that you originate or purchase and for applications that do not result in an origination.
a. Use Codes 1 through 5 for covered loans that you originate or purchase, as well as for applications that do not result in an origination (applications that are approved but not accepted, denied, withdrawn, or closed for incompleteness).
b. Use Code 5 when the priority of the lien against the property is other than one identified in Codes 1 through 4 (for example, secured by a fifth lien or sixth lien).
1. Score. Enter the credit score(s) relied on in making the credit decision, using column “A” for the applicant or borrower and, where required by Regulation C, column “CA” for the first co-applicant or co-borrower. Where Regulation C requires you to report a single score for the transaction that corresponds to multiple applicants or borrowers, use column “A.”
2. Name and Version of Model. For each credit score reported, use the following Codes to indicate the name and version of the model used to generate the credit score relied on in making the credit decision, using column “A” and column “CA” as applicable.
a. Use Code 7 if more than one credit scoring model was used in developing the credit score.
b. Use Code 8 for any credit scoring model that is not listed above, and provide the name and version of the scoring model used.
c. Use Code 9 if the file was closed for incompleteness or the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or if you did not rely on a credit score in making the credit decision.
d. Use Code 10 if the loan is a purchased loan.
1. Use the following Codes to indicate the principal reason(s) for denial, indicating up to three reasons.
2. Use Code 9 for “other” when a principal reason your institution denied the application is not listed in Codes 1 through 8. For a transaction in which your institution enters Code 9, enter the principal reason(s) the application was denied.
3. Use Code 10 for “not applicable” if the action taken on the application, pursuant to § 1003.4(a)(8), is not a denial. For example, use Code 10 if the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or the file was closed for incompleteness.
4. If your institution uses the model form for adverse action contained in appendix C to Regulation B (Form C–1, Sample Notice of Action Taken and Statement of Reasons), use the foregoing Codes as follows:
a. Code 1 for: Income insufficient for amount of credit requested, and Excessive obligations in relation to income.
b. Code 2 for: Temporary or irregular employment, and Length of employment.
c. Code 3 for: Insufficient number of credit references provided; Unacceptable type of credit references provided; No credit file; Limited credit experience; Poor credit performance with us; Delinquent past or present credit obligations with others; Number of recent inquiries on credit bureau report; Garnishment, attachment, foreclosure, repossession, collection action, or judgment; and Bankruptcy.
d. Code 4 for: Value or type of collateral not sufficient.
e. Code 6 for: Unable to verify credit references; Unable to verify employment; Unable to verify income; and Unable to verify residence.
f. Code 7 for: Credit application incomplete.
g. Code 9 for: Length of residence; Temporary residence; and Other reasons
1. Enter in dollars the amount of the total points and fees payable in connection with the covered loan or application, rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For example, enter 5472.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans or applications subject to this reporting requirement for which the total points and fees were not known at or before closing in connection with the covered loan, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans.
1. Enter in dollars the total of all itemized amounts that are designated borrower-paid at or before closing, rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For example, enter 1078.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans subject to this reporting requirement for which no amounts paid by the borrower were known at or before closing in connection with the covered loan, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as open-end lines of credit or reverse mortgages.
1. Enter in dollars the total amount of the points designated as paid to the creditor to reduce the interest rate, rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For example, enter 405.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans subject to this reporting requirement for which no points to reduce the interest rate were known at or before closing in connection with the covered loan, or for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as open-end lines of credit or reverse mortgages.
1. Enter the interest rate to three decimal places and use a leading zero if the interest rate is under 10 percent. For example, enter 04.125. If the interest rate applicable to the covered loan or application is a figure with more than three decimal places, round the figure to three decimal places.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans, open-end lines of credit, or reverse mortgages.
1. Enter the interest rate that will be applicable, or in the case of an application, that would be applicable, to the covered loan at closing or account opening to three decimal places and use a leading zero if the interest rate is under 10 percent. For example, enter 04.125. If the interest rate applicable to the covered loan is a figure with more than three decimal places, round the figure to three decimal places.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans for which no interest rate is applicable, or for applications for which the interest rate is unknown, such as applications closed for incompleteness.
1. Enter the term in months of any prepayment penalty applicable to the covered loan or application. For example, if a prepayment penalty may be imposed within the first 24 months after closing, enter 24.
2. Enter “NA” for covered loans for which a prepayment penalty may not be imposed under the terms of the covered loan, for covered loans not subject to this reporting requirement, such as purchased covered loans, or for applications for which the prepayment penalty term is unknown, such as applications closed for incompleteness.
1. Enter the applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio to two decimal places. For example, enter 25.25. If the applicant's or borrower's debt-to-income ratio is a figure with more than two decimal places, round up to the next hundredth. For example, for a debt-to-income ratio of 25.251, enter 25.26.
2. If no debt-to-income ratio was relied on in making the credit decision, if a file was closed for incompleteness, or if an application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made, enter “NA.” Also enter “NA” for reverse mortgages.
1. Enter the combined loan-to-value ratio applicable to the property to two decimal places. For example, enter 82.95. If the combined loan-to-value ratio is a figure with more than two decimal places, truncate the digits beyond two decimal places.
2. If no combined loan-to-value ratio was calculated in connection with the covered loan or application, enter “NA.”
1. Loan Term. Enter the scheduled number of months after which the legal obligation will mature or would have matured.
a. For a covered loan that you purchased, enter the number of months after which the legal obligation matures as measured from the covered loan's origination.
b. For an open-end line of credit with a definite term, enter the number of months from origination until the account termination date, including both the draw and repayment period.
c. For a covered loan or application without a definite term, such as some home-equity lines of credit or reverse mortgages, enter “NA.”
1. Enter the number of months from loan origination until the first date the interest rate may change.
a. For a fixed rate covered loan or an application for a fixed rate covered loan, enter “NA.”
b. For a covered loan you purchased, enter the number of months until the first date the interest rate may change as measured from loan origination, or enter “NA” for a purchased fixed rate covered loan.
1. Indicate if the covered loan or application requires a payment that is more than two times a regular periodic payment.
1. Indicate if the covered loan or application would permit one or more periodic payments to be applied solely to accrued interest and not to principal.
1. Indicate if the covered loan or application would permit a minimum periodic payment that covers only a portion of the accrued interest, resulting in an increase in the principal balance under the terms of the legal obligation.
1. Indicate if the covered loan or application includes contractual terms other than contractual terms described in §§ 1003.4(a)(27)(i), (ii), and (iii) that would allow for payments other than fully amortizing payments during the loan term.
1. Enter the value of the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan relied on in making the credit decision in dollars.
a. If the value of the property was not relied on in making the credit decision, enter “NA.”
1. Indicate whether the manufactured home related to the covered loan or application is legally classified as real property or as personal property using the following codes:
a. Use Code 1 if the manufactured home is legally classified as real property under applicable State law.
b. Use Code 2 if the manufactured home is legally classified as personal property under applicable State law.
c. Use Code 3 if the covered loan or application does not relate to a manufactured home.
1. Indicate whether the applicant or borrower owns the land on which a manufactured home is or will be located through a direct or indirect ownership interest or leases the land through a paid or
a. Use Code 1 for a covered loan or application for which the applicant or borrower has a direct ownership interest in the land on which the dwelling is or is to be located, such as fee simple ownership.
b. Use Code 2 for a covered loan or application for which the applicant or borrower holds or will hold an indirect ownership interest in the land on which the dwelling is or is to be located, such as through a resident-owned community structured as a housing cooperative that owns the underlying land.
c. Use Code 3 for a covered loan or application for which the applicant or borrower leases the land on which the dwelling is or is to be located and pays or will make payments pursuant to the lease, such as a lease for a lot in a manufactured home park.
d. Use Code 4 for a covered loan or application for which the applicant or borrower is or will be a tenant on the land on which the dwelling is or is to be located and does not or will not make payments pursuant to the tenancy, such as tenancy on land owned by a family member who has given permission for the location of the manufactured home.
e. Use Code 5 if the covered loan or application does not relate to a manufactured home or if a location for a manufactured home related to a covered loan or application is not determined.
1. Enter the number of individual dwelling units related to the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan.
1. Enter the number of individual dwelling units related to the property securing the covered loan or, in the case of an application, proposed to secure the covered loan that are income-restricted pursuant to Federal, State, or local affordable housing programs.
a. For a covered loan or application not related to a multifamily dwelling, enter “NA.”
b. For a covered loan or application related to a multifamily dwelling that does not contain any such income-restricted individual dwelling units, enter “0.”
1. Direct Application. Indicate whether the applicant or borrower submitted the application directly to your institution.
a. Use Code 1 if the applicant or borrower submitted the application directly to your institution.
b. Use Code 2 if the applicant or borrower did not submit the application directly to your institution.
c. Use Code 3 only if the loan is a purchased loan.
2. Initially Payable. Indicate whether the covered loan was or, in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to your institution.
a. Use Code 1 if the covered loan was or, in the case of an application, would have been initially payable to your institution.
b. Use Code 2 if the covered loan was not or, in the case of an application, would not have been initially payable to your institution.
c. Use Code 3 only if the loan is a purchased loan.
1. NMLSR ID: Enter the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry mortgage loan originator unique identifier (NMLSR ID) as set forth in the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, title V of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (S.A.F.E. Act), 12 U.S.C. 5101
2. No NMLSR ID: If the mortgage loan originator is not required to obtain and has not been assigned an NMLSR ID, enter “NA” for not applicable.
1. Automated Underwriting System: Indicate the name of the automated underwriting system (AUS) used by your institution to evaluate the application by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. Use Code 1 for the AUS developed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or any successor.
b. Use Code 2 for the AUS developed by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) or any successor.
c. Use Code 3 for the AUS developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans.
d. Use Code 4 for the AUS developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program loans.
e. Use Code 5 for an AUS developed by a securitzer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor not listed in Codes 1 through 4. For a transaction in which your institution enters Code 5, enter the name of the AUS used to evaluate the application.
f. Use Code 6 for “not applicable” if your institution did not use an AUS developed by a securitzer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor to evaluate the application.
g. Use Code 7 if the loan is a purchased loan.
2. Automated Underwriting System Recommendation: Indicate the recommendation generated by the automated underwriting system (AUS) used by your institution to evaluate the application by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. Use Code 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for the AUS recommendation returned by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or any successor.
b. Use Code 6 or 7 for the AUS recommendation returned by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) or any successor.
c. Use Code 6 or 8 for the AUS recommendation returned by FHA TOTAL Scorecard.
d. Use Code 3, 6, or 8 for the AUS recommendation returned by GUS.
e. Use Code 9 for any AUS recommendation not listed in Codes 1 through 8. For a transaction in which your institution enters Code 9, enter the recommendation generated by the AUS developed by a securitzer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor that was used to evaluate the application.
f. Use Code 10 for “not applicable” if your institution did not consider a recommendation generated by an AUS developed by a securitzer, Federal government insurer, or guarantor in its underwriting process. For example, use Code 10 if your institution only manually underwrote the application. Also, use Code 10 if the file was closed for incompleteness or the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made.
g. Use Code 11 if the loan is a purchased loan.
1. Indicate whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a reverse mortgage and, for transactions that are reverse mortgages, whether or not it is an open- or closed-end transaction by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. If the transaction is a closed-end reverse mortgage transaction, enter Code 1.
b. If the transaction is an open-end reverse mortgage transaction, enter Code 2.
c. If the transaction is not a reverse mortgage transaction, enter Code 3.
1. Indicate whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, an open-end line of credit, and whether the covered loan is, or the application is for, a home-equity line of credit, by entering the applicable Code from the following:
a. If the transaction is a home-equity line of credit, enter Code 1.
b. If the transaction an open-end line of credit, but is not a home-equity line of credit, enter Code 2.
c. If the transaction is not an open-end line of credit, enter Code 3. Also enter Code 3 for an open-end reverse mortgage transaction.
1. Indicate whether the covered loan is a qualified mortgage, as described under Regulation Z, by entering the applicable Code from the following:
2. For covered loans subject to the ability-to-repay provisions of Regulation Z:
a. If the covered loan is a standard qualified mortgage pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.43(e)(2), enter Code 1.
b. If the covered loan is a temporary qualified mortgage pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.43(e)(4), enter Code 2.
c. If the covered loan is a small creditor qualified mortgage pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.43(e)(5), enter Code 3.
d. If the covered loan is a balloon-payment qualified mortgage pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.43(f), enter Code 4.
e. If the covered loan is not a qualified mortgage pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.43(e) or (f), enter Code 5.
3. For applications for covered loans and for covered loans not subject to the ability-to-repay provisions of Regulation Z, enter “not applicable.”
1. Enter in dollars the amount of any draw on a home-equity line of credit or on an open-end reverse mortgage made at the time of account opening.
1. Financial institutions are required to submit all required data to the Bureau or appropriate Federal agency via the Bureau's Web site or via secure electronic submission as specified by the Bureau or appropriate Federal agency in prescribed procedures and technical specifications.
2. With its submission, each financial institution is required:
a. To provide the name, telephone number, facsimile number, and email address of a person who may contacted with questions about the institution's submission;
b. To identify its appropriate Federal agency; and
c. To identify the total entries contained in the submission.
3. Data required to be submitted that are not recorded on the loan application register shall be submitted with the loan application register on the transmittal sheet or in such other format specified by the Bureau or appropriate Federal agency.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
3.
i. Two institutions that are not covered merge. The merged entity meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution. No data collection is required for the calendar year of the merger (even though the merger creates an institution that meets all of the requirements necessary to be a covered institution). When a branch office of an institution that is not covered is acquired by another institution that is not covered, and the acquisition results in a covered institution, no data collection is required for the calendar year of the acquisition.
ii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The covered institution is the surviving institution, or a new covered institution is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for the covered institution's covered loans and applications and is optional for covered loans and applications handled in offices of the institution that was previously not covered. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of an institution that is not covered, data collection is optional for covered loans and applications handled by the acquired branch office for the calendar year of the acquisition.
iii. A covered institution and an institution that is not covered merge. The institution that is not covered is the surviving institution, or a new institution that is not covered is formed. For the calendar year of the merger, data collection is required for covered loans and applications of the covered institution that take place prior to the merger. Data collection by the previously covered institution is optional for that calendar year for transactions taking place after the merger date. When an institution remains not covered after acquiring a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for transactions of the covered branch office that take place prior to the acquisition. Data collection by the previously covered branch office is optional for transactions taking place after the acquisition.
iv. Two covered institutions merge. Data collection is required for the entire year. The surviving or new institution files either a consolidated submission or separate submissions for that calendar year. When a covered institution acquires a branch office of a covered institution, data collection is required for the entire year. Data for the acquired branch office may be submitted by either institution.
4.
5.
6.
1.
4.
1.
2.
3.
7.
1.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
i. A financial institution reports these data even if the covered loans were subsequently sold by the institution.
ii. A financial institution reports data for applications that did not result in an origination but on which action was taken—for example, an application that the institution denied, that it approved but was not accepted, that it closed for incompleteness, or that the applicant withdrew during the calendar year covered by the register. A financial institution is required to report data regarding requests under a preapproval program (as defined in § 1003.2(b)(2)) only if the preapproval request is denied, results in the origination of a home purchase loan, or was approved but not accepted.
iii. A financial institution reports the data for an application on the loan application register for the calendar year during which the application was acted upon even if the
iv. A financial institution may report data on a single loan application register, separate loan application registers at different branches, or on separate loan application registers for different loan types (such as for home purchase or home improvement loans, or for loans on multifamily dwellings).
4.
i. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant and forwarded that application to Financial Institution B. Financial Institution B reviewed the application and approved the loan prior to closing. The loan closed in Financial Institution A's name. Financial Institution B purchased the loan from Financial Institution A after closing. Financial Institution B was not acting as Financial Institution A's agent. Since Financial Institution B made the credit decision prior to closing, Financial Institution B reports the transaction as an origination, not as a purchase. Financial Institution A does not report the transaction.
ii. Financial Institution A received an application for a covered loan from an applicant and forwarded that application to Financial Institution B. Financial Institution B reviewed the application before the loan would have closed, but the application did not result in an origination because, for example, the application was denied or the application was withdrawn by the applicant. Financial Institution B was not acting as Financial Institution A's agent. If the loan had been originated, the loan would have closed in Financial Institution A's name and Financial Institution B would have purchased the loan after closing. Since Financial Institution B made the credit decision before the loan would have closed or, in the case of a withdrawal, was in the process of reviewing the application to make a credit decision when the application was withdrawn, Financial Institution B reports the application. Financial Institution A does not report the application.
iii. Financial Institution B purchased a covered loan from Financial Institution A. Financial Institution B did not review the application before closing. Financial Institution A approved the application before closing. Financial Institution A was not acting as Financial Institution B's agent. Since Financial Institution A made the credit decision before closing, Financial Institution A reports the loan as an origination. Financial Institution B reports the loan as a purchase.
iv. Financial Institution A received an application directly from an applicant. If approved, the loan would have closed in Financial Institution B's name. Financial Institution A denied the application without sending it to Financial Institution B for approval. Financial Institution A was not acting as Financial Institution B's agent. Since Financial Institution A made the credit decision before the loan would have closed, Financial Institution A reports the application. Financial Institution B does not report the application.
v. Financial Institution A reviewed and made a credit decision on an application using Financial Institution B's underwriting criteria. Financial Institution B did not review the application. Financial Institution A was not acting as Financial Institution B's agent. Financial Institution A reports the application or origination. Financial Institution B does not report the transaction.
vi. Financial Institution A reviewed and made a credit decision on an application based on the criteria of a third-party insurer or guarantor (including a government or private insurer or guarantor). Financial Institution A reports the application or origination.
5.
6.
i. Financial Institution A originates covered loan 001 in year one and sells it to Financial Institution B in year one. Later in year one, Financial Institution B requires Financial Institution A to repurchase covered loan 001. Financial Institution A reports the origination of covered loan 001 in year one and does not report the sale of covered loan 001 or the repurchase of covered loan 001. Financial Institution B does not report the purchase of covered loan 001 in year one.
ii. Financial Institution A originates covered loan 001 in year 1 and sells it to Financial Institution B in year one. In year two, Financial Institution B requires Financial Institution A to repurchase covered loan 001. Financial Institution A reports the origination and sale of covered loan 001 in year one and the repurchase, reported as a purchase, of covered loan 001 in year two. Financial Institution B reports the purchase of covered loan 001 in year one.
iii. Financial Institution A originates covered loan 001 in year one and sells it to Financial Institution B in year two. In year two, Financial Institution B requires Financial Institution A to repurchase covered loan 001. Financial Institution A reports the origination of covered loan 001 in year one and the repurchase, reported as a purchase, of covered loan 001 in year two but does not report the sale of covered loan 001 in year two. Financial Institution B reports the purchase and the sale of covered loan 001 in year two.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Paragraph 4(a)(11).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
2.
3.
4.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
5.
i.
ii.
iii.
6.
1.
ii. Financial institutions may also consider their established procedures when determining lien status for applications that do not result in originations. For example, an applicant applies to a financial institution to refinance a $100,000 first mortgage; the applicant also has a home-equity line of credit for $20,000. If the financial institution's practice in such a case is to ensure that it will have first-lien position—through a subordination agreement with the holder of the mortgage on the home-equity line of credit—then the financial institution should report the application as an application for a first-lien covered loan.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.
i. Affordable housing programs pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
ii. Public housing (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6));
iii. The HOME Investment Partnerships program (24 CFR part 92);
iv. The Community Development Block Grant program (24 CFR part 570);
v. Multifamily tax subsidy project funding through tax-exempt bonds or tax credits (26 U.S.C. 42; 26 U.S.C. 142(d));
vi. Project-based vouchers (24 CFR part 983);
vii. Federal Home Loan Bank affordable housing program funding (12 CFR part 1291); and
viii. Rural Housing Service multifamily housing loans and grants (7 CFR part 3560).
3.
4.
Paragraph 4(a)(33).
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
ii.
3.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
2.
3.
1.