Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Transportation Security Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order (Order). The Order is administered by the Softwood Lumber Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the Order, assessments are collected from U.S. manufacturers (domestic) and importers and used for projects to promote softwood lumber within the United States. Softwood lumber is used in products like flooring, siding and framing. This rule implements authority contained in the Order that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. This action will contribute to effective administration of the program.
Maureen T. Pello, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon, 97004; telephone: (503) 632–8848; facsimile (503) 632–8852; or electronic mail:
This rule is issued under the Order. (7 CFR part 1217). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411–7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from domestic manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote softwood lumber within the United States. Softwood lumber is used in products like flooring, siding and framing. This rule implements authority contained in the Order and the 1996 Act that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. This action was unanimously recommended by the Board and will contribute to effective administration of the program.
Section 1217.52(a) of the Order specifies that the Board's programs and expenses shall be paid by assessments on domestic manufacturers and importers and other income or funds available to the Board. Paragraph (l) of that section specifies further that when a domestic manufacturer or importer fails to pay their assessments within 60 calendar days of when the assessment is due, the Board may impose a late payment charge and interest. The late payment and interest charges must be specified in regulations issued by the Secretary. All late assessments are subject to the late payment charge and interest.
The softwood lumber program was promulgated in 2011. Assessment collection began in January 2012. Assessments on softwood lumber domestic shipments and imports are due to the Board 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter. For example, assessments for softwood lumber shipped domestically or imported during the months of January, February
Assessment funds are used for promotion activities that are intended to benefit all industry members. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time would be able to reap the benefits of Board programs at the expense of others. In addition, they would be able to utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Board to finance Board programs.
Thus, the Board met on May 8, 2012, and unanimously recommended implementing the Order authority regarding late payment and interest charges. Specifically, the Board recommended that a late payment charge be imposed on any domestic manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such domestic manufacturer or importer is liable. Such late payment will be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This will be a one-time late payment charge equal to 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued. The Board also recommended that 1
This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new Subpart C will be added to the Order for rules and regulations, and a new section 1217.520 will be added to Subpart C.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), AMS is required to examine the impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR Part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (domestic manufacturers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.0 million.
According to the Board, it is estimated that there are currently 385 domestic manufacturers of softwood lumber in the United States. This number represents separate business entities; one business entity may include multiple sawmills. Using an average price of $384 per thousand board feet,
Likewise, based on Customs and Board data, it is estimated there are currently 795 importers of softwood lumber. Using 2013 Customs data, about 710 importers, or about 89 percent, import less than $7.0 million worth of softwood lumber annually. Thus, for purposes of the RFA, the majority of domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber would be considered small entities.
Regarding value of the commodity, with domestic production averaging about 40 billion board feet in 2013, and using an average price of $384 per thousand board feet, the average annual domestic value for softwood lumber is about $15.4 billion. According to Customs data, the average annual value for softwood lumber imports for 2013 is about $4.8 billion.
This rule prescribes late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from domestic manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote softwood lumber within the United States. Softwood lumber is used in products like flooring, siding and framing. This rule adds a new section 1217.520 that specifies a late payment charge of 10 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of 1
Regarding the economic impact of this rule on affected entities, this action imposes no costs on domestic manufacturers and importers who pay their assessments on time. It merely provides an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges will be applied the same. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action will help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities.
Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Order provides for an exemption for entities that domestically ship or import less than 15 million board feet annually. It is estimated that, of the current 385 domestic manufacturers, 200, or 52 percent, ship less than 15 million board feet per year and are thus exempt from paying assessments under the Order. Of the current 795 importers, it is estimated that 730, or 92 percent, import less than 15 million board feet per year and are also exempt from paying assessments. Thus, about 185 current domestic manufacturers and 65 current importers pay assessments under the Order.
Regarding alternatives, one option to the action is to maintain the status quo and not prescribe late payment and interest charges for past due assessments. However, the Board determined that implementing such charges will help facilitate program administration by encouraging entities to pay their assessments in a timely manner. The Board reviewed rates of late payment and interest charges prescribed in other research and promotion programs and concluded that a 10 percent late payment charge and interest at a rate of 1
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581–0093. This rule
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, this action was discussed by the Board at its first meeting held in November 2011 and at six committee meetings held via teleconference during the first six months of 2012. The Board met in May 2012 and unanimously made its recommendation. All of the Board's meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Softwood Lumber promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1217 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411–7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a) A late payment charge shall be imposed on any domestic manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which they are liable. The late payment will be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge shall be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.
(b) In addition to the late payment charge, 1
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Final rule; request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations governing when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will issue correspondence, notices of decisions, and documents evidencing lawful status in the United States to an applicant, petitioner, attorney, or accredited representative. Specifically, this final rule explains how USCIS will issue requests, notices, cards, and original documents to applicants, petitioners, and their attorneys or accredited representatives of record. This final rule also amends the regulations to allow represented applicants to specifically consent to and request that any notices, decisions, and secure identity documents be sent solely to the official business address of the applicants' attorney or accredited representative, as reflected on a properly executed Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative. Further, through this final rule, DHS clarifies USCIS notification practices relating to represented parties. These changes will conform USCIS notice procedures to account for the full range of stakeholder norms, including industry preferences, in response to stakeholder comments.
You may submit comments, identified by DHS docket number USCIS–2012–0006 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Please refer to the PRA section of this final rule for instructions on how to submit comments regarding the revisions to Form G–28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative and Form G–28I, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney in Matters Outside the Geographic Confines of the United States).
Minas Khoudaghoulian, Chief, Adjustment and Naturalization Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, Washington, DC, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20529. Email:
All interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this final rule. DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also invite comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this final rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports a recommended change.
USCIS generally sends original notices and documents to the applicant or petitioner who requested the immigration benefit.
Prior to 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
On August 29, 2011, DHS published a final rule addressing USCIS's transformation initiative—a program to change USCIS business processes from a paper-based process to an electronic environment.
In response to the August 2011 final rule, many USCIS stakeholders, including several large employers, colleges, universities, and law firms, asked USCIS to clarify its notification process. Some stakeholders noted that it is a common business practice for employers to have their representatives receive and distribute documents to their international workforce. They also noted that USCIS has routinely sent original notices to attorneys or accredited representatives. The stakeholders asked USCIS to clarify that the August 2011 final rule did not change this practice and urged that USCIS maintain its current practice.
DHS agrees that a clarification is needed. DHS has been informed by stakeholders that large corporations,
Consequently, in this final rule, DHS will amend its regulations in several ways. First, USCIS will clarify that it will send notices only to the applicant or petitioner when the applicant or petitioner is unrepresented.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires DHS to provide public notice and seek public comment on substantive regulations.
This final rule addresses requirements that are procedural in nature and does not alter the substantive rights of individuals. In this final rule, DHS clarifies policies for sending notices, copies, and originals of correspondence, decisions, and secure identification documents to applicants, petitioners, attorneys and accredited representatives. These minor changes to USCIS mailing procedures do not alter a substantive right. Therefore, since this final rule is procedural, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) mandates that DHS conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis when it publishes any general notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. 603(a). RFA analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. DHS has determined that this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
DHS does not consider this final rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Based on DHS's preliminary analysis, this final rule is cost neutral as it imposes no costs and does not result in discernible monetary benefits. Accordingly, this final rule has not been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
DHS is pursuing this regulatory action to accord its regulations with industry norms and stakeholder requests. This final rule makes two clarifications and one change. First, the regulation will clarify that USCIS will send original notices and documents only to the applicant or petitioner if he or she is not represented by an attorney or accredited
This regulation will allow applicants and petitioners to choose to have USCIS mail original notices and documents only to their attorneys or accredited representatives if USCIS indicates that this option is available through the USCIS online application system, applicable forms, form instructions, or regulations for a specific benefit request. As stated earlier in this preamble, some stakeholders noted that it is a common business practice for employers to have their representatives receive and distribute documents to their international workforce. Because this final rule provides that option for the employer, employers will benefit from not being required to adjust their internal processes to match USCIS notice practices. DHS may amend a form in the course of regular program administration to expand the options for the mailing of notices at its discretion, but will incur no cost as a direct result of this final rule. Employers generally prefer that original notices and documents from USCIS are sent only to their representatives, thus DHS expects no cost to result from indicating to which address applicants or petitioners want notices sent. In addition, attorneys or representatives already transmit documents to the aliens and petitioners they represent based on where the alien or petitioner needs or desires to maintain the original, so this rule should impose no additional record keeping burden.
DHS also is revising the regulation to provide that two originals will be sent in the case of represented parties instead of the current practice of sending one original and one courtesy copy. This will not result in any additional costs because the costs for issuing an original of a USCIS notice, such as printing and mailing, would be similar to the costs for issuing a copy. Finally, the quantity of notices and documents sent will not change, only where and how they are sent. Therefore, DHS estimates that these two clarifications and change will not result in a direct cost to USCIS or to an applicant or petitioner, though applicants and petitioners may benefit from the clarifications.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, all Departments are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. USCIS
The revised Forms G–28 and G–28I have been submitted to the Office of Management Budget (OMB) for review and approval under procedures covered under the PRA. USCIS is requesting comments on this information collection for 30-days until November 28, 2014. USCIS previously published a notice in the
Two commenters requested that USCIS reprogram the Form G–28/28I that may be completed on a computer (“fillable form”) to permit more alphabetic characters than it currently permits attorneys to insert. Both of these commenters also requested that the fillable data fields permit the insertion of non-textual and special characters in addition to alphabetic characters. In response, USCIS cannot expand the number of characters permitted in the form's data fields or permit symbols and special characters. The technology used for the bar coding of the forms and the upload of the forms incorporates data standards that are intended to insure the integrity of the data that is captured and facilitate the flow of the data into information collection, storage and reporting systems. The form data standards impose limits on the size of fields and the use of special characters based on what past results and research
One commenter requested that USCIS add a space on the Form G–28/28I to indicate who is an authorized signatory for represented entities that are filing the related immigration benefit request. USCIS understands that who is an authorized signatory for an entity is not defined on all USCIS forms or by regulations and it may not always be clear. Nevertheless, Form G–28/28I is not the proper form for entities to use to designate an authorized signatory because it is used only to identify the petitioner/applicant's attorney or accredited representative of record to DHS. DHS and USCIS will explore whether this issue needs to be addressed in a future rulemaking, field office guidance, form instructions, or other policy instruments. Meanwhile, all benefit requests require the person signing the request to possess the authority to file the request on the applicant or petitioner's behalf. Where USCIS has reason to doubt the person's authority to sign, we may send a request for evidence as necessary to establish that the person has the requisite authority.
One commenter requested that USCIS move all signature blocks to the same place at bottom of the page. USCIS is uncertain what the commenter is requesting. The signature of the applicant, petitioner, or respondent precedes the signature of the attorney or accredited representative on the final page of the Form G–28/28I, and they are followed only by a section of the form which permits necessary additional information. The commenter is invited to submit clarifying comments in response to this notice.
One commenter complained that USCIS regularly fails to associate a new Form G–28/28I with the case when the form is filed to indicate that a pending, previously unrepresented filer, now has representation, or when the filer of the benefit request submits a new Form G–28/28I to indicate that it has a new representative. USCIS endeavors to make sure that each case reflects that it is subject to representation when a valid Form G–28/28I is filed. Nonetheless, USCIS processes millions of immigration benefit requests per year and much of the adjudication continues to be a paper-reliant process. As cases are adjudicated, files proceed through a number of steps, including intake, receipting, background and security checks, and routing to the proper office for further processing. As a result, immediately associating a subsequently filed Form G–28/28I with the client's case is not always possible. Nonetheless, USCIS appreciates the commenter's views and will strive to improve the precision of its process and service to its customers. If any attorney or accredited representative is concerned that his or her G–28/G–28I has not reached the appropriate USCIS office, we encourage you to contact the National Customer Service Line for information on how to the notify the appropriate USCIS office handling your client's case of your authorized representation.
One commenter has asked USCIS to revise the fillable form to allow the attorney to write in the state two-letter abbreviations without requiring that they search through an alphabetical listing of all state abbreviations in a drop-down menu. USCIS agrees with this comment. Thus, we will adopt the suggestion when we revise the form.
One commenter requested that the form permit a period to be placed in the address data element so, for example, addresses such as North Main Street may be N. Main, Court may be Ct., and Boulevard can be Blvd. As stated previously, USCIS follows standards in form development that insure the integrity of the data collected and uploaded into its systems. In addition, guidance from the U.S. Postal Service about addressing mail states: “Avoid commas, periods, or other punctuation—it helps your mailpiece speed through our processing equipment.”
In the notice, USCIS requested comments on the new features of Form G–28/G–28I regarding the USCIS notification practices relating to represented parties that DHS is promulgating in this final rule. One commenter suggested that DHS should send all original correspondence, including notices, Permanent Resident Cards, and Employment Authorization Documents, to the attorney of record when USCIS has been informed that the filer is represented. The commenter suggested that only courtesy copies be sent to the represented party, because their clients often move and the mail may not make it to them at their new address.
DHS and USCIS understand and appreciate the commenters view. As stated elsewhere in this preamble, however, INS proposed in 1991 that all notices, cards and documents be sent to the representative as the commenter suggests. Commenters largely opposed the proposal and argued that INS should continue to issue separate notices.
One commenter requested that USCIS add a column for Department of State filings in Part 3, section 1, of the Form G–28/28I. The comment did not expand on that request. Part 3 of the form is the Eligibility Information for the Attorney. USCIS knows of no edit to that section that would convey that the representation involves a filing at a U.S. consulate or embassy. In addition, while several USCIS immigration benefit requests permit filing at a U.S. consulate or embassy, the commenter did not provide a reason why such a distinction is necessary or helpful on Form G–28/28I and USCIS knows of none. Thus the suggestion is not adopted. USCIS welcomes a comment on this notice from the commenter clarifying the suggestion.
One commenter also requested that the Form G–28/28I be revised to permit the attorney to enter a foreign state and province in Section 3, parts 6d and 6e. Neither Form G–28 nor Form G–28I includes a Section 3, nor do they include a part 6d or 6e. Perhaps USCIS has misunderstood the comment, because both forms already permit inclusion of foreign states and provinces. Thus no changes are made in response to this comment. DHS invites the commenter to submit a scanned pen and ink markup of his suggested edits in response to this 30-day notice that shows the changes the commenter had in mind.
One commenter requested that USCIS add Internet hyperlinks to the form and docket in addition to the docket number in all
One commenter requests that USCIS change question 9 on the Form G–28/28I to ask for the telephone number at which the individual can best be reached, and not ask for a mobile number. USCIS understands the comment and agrees that there should be a field to capture the daytime telephone number for the applicant or petitioner as the primary contact number. USCIS, however, will not delete the mobile telephone number as a data element. USCIS asks for the mobile telephone number in Item Number 9 to facilitate USCIS text message updates to the applicant and petitioner or represented party. For clarification, USCIS will add the words “(if any)” after the words “Mobile Telephone Number” to avoid any implication that a mobile telephone number is mandatory.
One commenter asked USCIS to specify what notices and documents the client will receive and what notices and documents the attorney will receive if no box is checked on Form G–28/28I, if only box 2a is checked, if only box 2b is checked, or if both boxes are checked on the form. The commenter did not indicate where or in what manner they are suggesting USCIS provide that information. Nevertheless, this final rule explains what type of notices, documents, and situations to which these changes apply much more in depth than what we provide in the instructions for Form G–28/28I or the
One commenter requested that USCIS change the Form G–28/G–28I signature requirements to conform to that of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The commenter stated that ICE does not require represented parties to sign Form G–28 when they are in ICE custody or detention. DHS regulations at 8 CFR 103.2(a)(3) and 8 CFR 292.4(a) require individuals to sign Form G–28/28I. The regulations provide no exemption for individuals who are in the custody of law enforcement. Thus, USCIS cannot adopt the commenter's suggestion.
Finally, two commenters expressed general and strong support for the changes that USCIS proposed to make to the Form G–28. No commenters opposed the proposed changes.
When submitting comments on this information collection, your comments should address one or more of the following four points.
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to DHS and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be submitted to DHS as provided in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Accordingly, DHS is amending part 103 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1356b; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
(b) * * *
(19)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(C)
(iii)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; removal.
We are removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–26–15, which applied to certain Honeywell International Inc. air data pressure transducers as installed on various aircraft. AD 2012–26–15 required doing various tests or checks of equipment having certain air data pressure transducers, removing equipment if necessary, and reporting the results of the tests or checks. As an option to the tests or checks, AD 2012–26–15 allowed removal of affected equipment having certain air data pressure transducers. We issued AD 2012–26–15 to detect and correct inaccuracies of the pressure sensors, which could result in altitude, computed airspeed, true airspeed, and Mach computation errors. AD 2012–26–15 reported that these errors could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight of the aircraft and could result in consequent loss of control of the aircraft. Since we issued AD 2012–26–15, we have received new data indicating that the safety risk is lower than originally estimated.
This AD becomes effective December 3, 2014.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sreekant Sarma, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5351; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Honeywell International Inc. air data pressure transducers as installed on various aircraft. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received.
We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30498, May 28, 2014); and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30498, May 28, 2014).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective December 3, 2014.
This action rescinds AD 2012–26–15, Amendment 39–17310 (78 FR 1735, January 9, 2013).
This action applies to air data pressure transducers, as installed in air data computers (ADC), air data modules (ADM), air data attitude heading reference systems (ADAHRS), and digital air data computers (DADC) having the part numbers and serial numbers identified in Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin ADM/ADC/ADAHRS–34–A01, dated November 6, 2012. This appliance is installed on, but not limited to, the aircraft specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320–111, –211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A330–223F, –243F, –201, –202, –203, –223, –243, –301, –302, –303, –321, –322, –323, –341, –342, and –343 airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A340–211, –212, –213, –311, –312, –313, –541, and –642 airplanes.
(7) AGUSTA S.p.A. Model AW139 helicopters.
(8) Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters.
(9) The Boeing Company Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER series airplanes; and Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, and 777F series airplanes.
(10) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 560XL (560 Excel and 560 XLS) airplanes.
(11) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE–FALCON 900 airplanes and Model FALCON 2000 airplanes.
(12) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB–135BJ airplanes.
(13) Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GIV–X and GV–SP airplanes.
(14) Learjet Inc. Model 45 airplanes.
(15) PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC–12/47E airplanes.
(16) Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc.; de Havilland, Inc.) Model (Twin Otter) DHC–6–400 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–14–07 for certain The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes. AD 2005–14–07 required repetitive inspections of the carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing for cracking and other discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires reducing certain repetitive inspection intervals for the inboard and outboard
This AD is effective December 3, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 3, 2014.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August 15, 2005 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005). AD 2005–14–07 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM (79 FR 38801, July 9, 2014).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 38801, July 9, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 38801, July 9, 2014).
We estimate that this AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 3, 2014.
This AD replaces AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005).
This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727–100, 727–100C, 727–200, and 727–200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of broken carriage attach fittings of the inboard and outboard foreflaps found during an inspection and an additional report of broken inboard and outboard carriage attach fittings of the outboard foreflaps found during an inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the attach fittings of the foreflap carriage of the wings, which could result in partial or complete loss of the foreflap and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with revised service information and a new compliance time. Except as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD: Within 1,000 flight cycles after August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–14–07) or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD (for outboard foreflaps), inspect as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Accomplishing the actions of paragraph (m) or (o) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph for outboard foreflaps only.
(1) A detailed inspection to detect cracks and surface deviations on all edges, surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes on the two carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing.
(2) A high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes on the two carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with revised service information. If any crack is detected or if any surface deviation beyond the limits specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012; is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (m) of this AD, before further flight, replace the carriage attach fitting with a new, improved fitting or a new fitting having the same part number as the existing fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
(1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with revised service information. Within 3,500 flight cycles after August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–14–07), inspect for interference between the carriage attach fitting and the carriage lug fitting, and do other related investigative actions by accomplishing all the actions specified in paragraph 3.C. and Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or paragraph 3.B.3 and Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Do the actions in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
(2) Paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD restate the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with revised service information.
(i) If any discrepancy is found during any action required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, accomplish applicable corrective action(s) (e.g., adding a shim or reworking the carriage attachment lug assembly), in accordance with paragraph 3.C. and Figure 2 or 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or paragraph 3.B.3. and Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012; except as required by paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
(ii) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012; specify to contact the manufacturer if rework of the improved fitting is required: Before further flight, rework in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or Los Angeles ACO, FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative (AR) for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically reference this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval must be done using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–59, Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965: Before or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this AD, install guide blocks and bushings in the midflap ribs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–59, Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965.
(2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Before or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For Groups I and II airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Do a one-time inspection of the airload support roller for travel on the foreflap track, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972.
(A) If the airload support roller travels within the limits specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972, modify the control drum of the inboard flap and inboard jackscrews of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972.
(B) If the airload support roller travels beyond the limits specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or Los Angeles ACO, FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an AR for the Boeing DOA Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically reference this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval must be done using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
(ii) For Group III airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Modify the inboard jackscrews of the outboard flap (i.e., replacing the down stop at the inboard jackscrews of the outboard flap) in accordance with Part II of the
(3) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966: Before or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (j)(3)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Chamfer the upper and lower flanges at the aft end of the foreflap tracks in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966.
(ii) Do a standard magnetic particle inspection of the entire foreflap tracks for cracks in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966. If any crack is detected, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or Los Angeles ACO, FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an AR for the Boeing DOA Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically reference this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval must be done using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
(iii) Do a general visual inspection of the track rib faces at the front and rear spars to verify if the opening in the spars is flush with or clear of the plane of the rib faces, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966. If the opening is not flush or clear with the plane, before further flight, rework the spar opening in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966.
(iv) Do a general visual inspection of the head or shank of bolts by securing the foreflap links to the foreflap tracks to verify if they protrude beyond the edge of the track flange in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966. If the head or shank of the bolts protrude beyond the edge of the track flange, before further flight, rework in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966.
(v) For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(4) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with a new paragraph identifier. For airplanes other than those identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD: Before or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this AD, do an inspection to verify if any of the parts listed in the “Spares Affected” paragraph of each service information referenced in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD are installed on the airplane. If any part identified in that paragraph is found installed, before further flight, do the applicable corrective and investigative action(s) specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with no changes. Replacement of the two carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing with new, improved fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; and accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, before or concurrently with the replacement; constitutes terminating action for paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD and paragraph (l) of this AD for those replaced fittings on the outboard and inboard foreflaps.
This paragraph restates the optional deferral of paragraph (o) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with no changes. Replacement of the two carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing with new fittings having the same part number as the existing fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; and accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, before or concurrently with the replacement; defers the next inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD for 10,000 flight cycles after the replacement. Thereafter, repeat the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD.
Within 1,000 flight cycles after the most recent accomplishment of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to detect cracks and surface deviations on all edges, surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC inspection to detect cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes, on the two carriage attach fittings on the outboard foreflaps of each wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012, and do all applicable corrective actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles until the requirements of paragraph (o) of this AD is accomplished. Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for the outboard foreflaps only.
Within 200 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection and function check for damage and incorrect operation of the outboard foreflap installations, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Do the applicable corrective actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspection and check at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
For airplanes on which any production carriage attach fitting is still installed on the outboard foreflap: Within 3,000 flight cycles or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all production carriage attach fittings with new, improved carriage attach fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012, and do all applicable concurrent actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (m) of this AD for outboard foreflaps only.
For airplanes on which a new carriage attach fitting with the original part number on the outboard foreflap was installed in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of this AD.
(1) Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracks and surface deviation on all edges surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC inspection for cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes, on the carriage attach fittings for the outboard foreflaps, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 200
(2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, replace the fitting with a new, improved fitting in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g), (m), and (p)(1) of this AD for that outboard foreflap only.
For airplanes on which a new, improved carriage attach fitting on the outboard foreflap was replaced in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (k), (o), or (p) of this AD: Within 20,000 flight cycles after installing that fitting, do a detailed inspection for cracks and surface deviation on all edges surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC inspection for cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes, on the carriage attach fittings for the outboard foreflaps, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,400 flight cycles. Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for outboard foreflaps only.
(1) This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (p) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with no changes. Installations accomplished before August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–14–07), in accordance with Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–59, dated September 2, 1965, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (q) of AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with no changes. Inspections and modifications accomplished before August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–14–07), in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, dated October 7, 1971, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (t)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005–14–07, Amendment 39–14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5239; fax: 562–627–5210; email
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (u)(5) and (u)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 3, 2014.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005).
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727–57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002.
(ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 727–27–133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972. Pages 1, 12, 14 through 18, and 27 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972. Pages 2 through 11, 13, 19 through 26, and 28 are original, dated October 7, 1971.
(iii) Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–59, Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965. Pages 1, 4, and 6 of this document are identified as Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965. Pages 2, 3, and 5 are original, dated September 2, 1965.
(iv) Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57–72, dated September 21, 1966.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet
(6) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Aircraft Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual and related rules to reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The updates are being made primarily to support the revision of the disclosure, reporting and offering process for asset-backed securities (ABS) to enhance transparency and better protect investors in the securitization market; system upgrade to be compatible with Internet Explorer (IE) version 8.0; revision of the N–SAR system requirements. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support this functionality on October 20, 2014.
Effective October 29, 2014. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 29, 2014.
In the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning the revisions for asset-backed securities contact Heather Mackintosh at (202) 551–3600; and in the Office of Information Technology, contact Tammy Borkowski at (202) 551–7208.
We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer
The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 18 (October 2014), Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 28 (October 2014), and Volume III entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N–SAR Supplement,” Version 4 (October 2014). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.
The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 14.2 on October 20, 2014 and will introduce the following changes.
EDGAR will be updated to add new submission form types SF–1, SF–1/A, SF–3, SF–3/A, SF–3MEF, 424H, 424H/A, ABS–EE, and ABS–EE/A to the EDGAR Filing Web site. These submission form types can be accessed by selecting the `EDGARLink Online Form Submission' link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, filers may construct XML submissions for these submission form types by following the “EDGARLink Online XML Technical Specification” document.
New exhibits EX–102 (Asset Data File) and EX–103 (Asset Related Document) will be available on EDGARLink Online for submission form types ABS–EE and ABS–EE/A. Filers must construct an XML Asset-Backed Security (ABS) Asset Data File by following the new “EDGAR ABS XML Technical Specification” document. Each element listed in the Element/Attribute Name column in section 3.4 (Mapping of ABS Schemas to Asset Data Types) of the “EDGAR ABS XML Technical Specification” document corresponds to an Item number of Schedule AL—Asset-Level Information (17 CFR 229.1125). Schedule AL contains the complete title and description of each of the disclosure requirements and filers should refer to Schedule AL for a full description of the information that must be provided in any ABS Asset Data File.
Form 8–K Item 6.06 (Static Pool) will be available on EDGARLink Online for submission form types 8–K, 8–K/A, 8–K12B, 8–K12B/A, 8–K12G3, 8–K12G3/A, 8–K15D5, and 8–K15D5/A.
Exhibit EX–106 (Static Pool) will be available on EDGARLink Online and can be included with the following submission form types: S–1, S–1/A, S–1MEF, S–3, S–3/A, S–3ASR, S–3D, S–3DPOS, S–3MEF, SF–1, SF–1/A, SF–3, SF–3/A, and SF–3MEF. In addition, Exhibit EX–106 can also be included with the following submission form types if Item 6.06 is selected: 8–K, 8–K/A, 8–K12B, 8–K12B/A, 8–K12G3, 8–K12G3/A, 8–K15D5, and 8–K15D5/A.
The Login and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) screens for all EDGAR Web sites, the EDGAR Portal, and the EDGAR Company Database will be updated to specify Internet Explorer 8.0 as the recommended browser and Firefox 24.x as an additionally compatible browser.
EDGAR Filer Manual Volume I (General Information) and EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II (EDGAR Filing) will be updated to remove all references to leased line filings, as EDGAR no longer supports the leased line filing method.
Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S–T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is October 29, 2014. In accordance with the APA,
We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S–T under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z–3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78
Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 18 (October 2014). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 28 (October 2014). Additional provisions applicable to Form N–SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N–SAR Supplement,” Version 4 (October 2014). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
By the Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that provide guidance on the mandatory electronic filing of Form 2290, “Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return,” for 25 or more vehicles; credits or refunds for sold, destroyed, or stolen vehicles; and the tax liability and computation of tax on the use of certain second-hand vehicles. The regulations affect owners and operators of highway motor vehicles with a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more. These final regulations also remove the temporary regulations that provide guidance on the filing of Form 2290 and payment of the associated highway use tax for the taxable period beginning July 1, 2011.
Natalie Payne, (202) 317–5262 (not a toll-free number).
This document amends the Highway Use Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 41) under sections 4481, 4483, 6001, 6071, and 6151 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
Section 4481(a) of the Code imposes an annual tax on the use of highway vehicles with a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more. Under paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of section 4482, the taxable period generally runs from July 1 through the following June 30.
Section 867 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108–357 (118 Stat. 1418 (2004)), (1) added new section 4481(e), which requires electronic filing of a return reporting tax on the use of 25 or more highway motor vehicles, (2) modified section 4481(c)(2) to allow a proration of the tax for vehicles that are sold, and (3) repealed section 6156, eliminating the ability to pay the tax in installments.
On January 16, 2009, the IRS and the Treasury Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–116699–07, 74 FR 2910) (NPRM 1) in the
The NPRM 1 also revises existing regulations to administer the credits and refunds resulting from a statutory overpayment of tax upon the sale of a vehicle, and it clarifies that the triggering event for overpayments is the sale, destruction, or theft of a vehicle. In addition, NPRM 1 clarifies the tax liability and computation of tax upon the first taxable use of a second-hand vehicle for which there was a prior taxable use during the tax period.
The IRS and the Treasury Department received one written comment in response to NPRM 1. No public hearing was requested or held.
On July 20, 2011, the IRS and the Treasury Department published final and temporary regulations (TD 9537, 76 FR 43121) (the Temporary Regulations) in the
These final regulations adopt NPRM 1 with two substantive changes (described in the next paragraph). In addition, the IRS and the Treasury Department have made certain nonsubstantive changes to the regulatory text, including minor wording changes, to improve the clarity and readability of the final regulations.
To reduce the burden on small business, the final regulations remove the proposals in NPRM 1 related to the effect of a failure to file a Form 2290 electronically for 25 or more vehicles. Thus, under the final regulations, the filing of a Form 2290 on paper for 25 or more vehicles does not constitute a failure to file for purposes of the penalty under section 6651, and the IRS will not withhold from the taxpayer a receipted Schedule 1 (Form 2290). The IRS and the Treasury Department continue to consider ways to ensure compliance with the electronic filing requirement in section 4481(e). Accordingly, the IRS and the Treasury Department request comments on how to enforce the electronic filing requirement in a manner that does not unduly burden taxpayers. Comments on this issue should be submitted in writing and can be mailed to the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), Re: REG–116699–07, CC:PSI:B7, Room 5314, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. All comments received will be available for public inspection at
These final regulations do not adopt NPRM 2 because the period to which NPRM 2 applies has ended. In addition, these final regulations remove the Temporary Regulations.
The comment received in response to NPRM 1 suggested that the IRS modify its rule under § 41.6001–2(b)(2)(ii) relating to the registration of highway motor vehicles. Under § 41.6001–2(b)(2)(ii), a State that registers vehicles other than on the basis of gross weight must require proof of payment in order to register a highway motor vehicle, unless the State receives a written statement providing that during the taxable period that includes the date on which the State receives the application for registration, the vehicle had a taxable gross weight of less than 55,000 pounds. The commenter noted that many highway motor vehicles in the gross weight range of 8,000 to 54,999 pounds are used in the same manner each year and never reach a gross weight of 55,000 pounds. The commenter suggested that owners of vehicles in the 8,000 to 54,999 pound range be allowed to declare at the initial vehicle registration that the gross weight of the highway motor vehicle is not expected to ever reach 55,000 pounds, provided the owner also certifies that if the gross weight of the vehicle ever reaches a gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more the owner will make timely payments of any highway vehicle use tax due.
The final regulations do not adopt the change proposed by the commenter. The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that the written statement required by § 41.6001–2(b)(2)(ii) provides information that is essential to the effective and efficient administration of the tax under section 4481 without unduly burdening taxpayers.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations affect owners and operators of highway motor vehicles with a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more, some of which may be small entities. Although a substantial number of small entities may be subject to the requirements of this rule, any economic impact is minimal. The regulations provide guidance for claiming a refund or credit when a vehicle is sold during the tax year. Specifically, the regulations provide that the claim must be made on Form 2290 or Form 8849, “Claim for Refund of Excise Taxes.” The information to complete these forms is readily available to the taxpayer and the forms take little time to complete. Without the claim information, the IRS could not determine taxpayer eligibility or determine the accuracy of the claim. Accordingly, these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, NPRM 1 and NPRM 2 were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small entities. No comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is Natalie Payne, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Excise taxes, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 41 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805.
Section 41.4482(b)–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4482(b).
Section 41.4483–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4483(a).
Section 41.4483–2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4483(c).
Section 41.4483–3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 4483(d).
Section 41.6001–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6001.
Section 41.6001–2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6001.
Section 41.6001–3 also issued under sec. 507, Public Law 100–17 (101 Stat. 260).
Section 41.6011(a)–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6011(a).
Section 41.6060–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a).
Section 41.6071(a)–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6071 (a).
Section 41.6091–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6091(a).
Section 41.6101–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6101.
Section 41.6109–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a).
Section 41.6109–2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a).
Section 41.6151(a)–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6151(a).
Section 41.6695–1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) The vehicle is destroyed or stolen before the first day of the last month in the taxable period and is not later used by the taxpayer during the period; or
(B) The taxpayer sells the vehicle before the first day of the last month in the taxable period and does not later use the vehicle during the period.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(A) The vehicle identification number and taxable gross weight of the vehicle;
(B) The date of the sale, destruction, or theft of the vehicle; and
(C) If the vehicle was sold, the name and address of the purchaser of the vehicle.
(vi)
(vii)
(5)
(i) The taxable gross weight of a highway motor vehicle is decreased;
(ii) The use of a highway motor vehicle is discontinued (for reasons other than sale, destruction, or theft as described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section); or
(iii) The highway motor vehicle is converted to a use that is exempt from the tax imposed by section 4481(a).
(d)
(i) In July, X uses a vehicle that is registered in X's name and has a taxable gross weight of 70,000 pounds. The vehicle is not a logging vehicle. X pays the $430 of tax imposed by section 4481 for the taxable period. On September 2 of the same calendar year, X sells the vehicle to Y. X's tax is calculated under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) by multiplying the amount of tax that would be due for a full taxable period by a fraction that has as its numerator the number of months in the period from the first day of the month in which X's first taxable use of the highway motor vehicle occurs to and including the last day of the month in which the vehicle was sold, and as its denominator the number of months in the entire taxable period. Thus, X's tax for the period is $107.50 (3/12 of $430), and X may claim a credit or refund of $322.50 ($430.00−$107.50) in accordance with § 41.4481–1(c)(4)(v) after X sells the vehicle.
(ii) On September 23, Y uses the vehicle. Y is liable for tax on the use of the vehicle during the taxable period ending June 30 of the following calendar year. Y's tax is calculated under paragraph (c)(4)(vii) by multiplying the amount of tax that would be due for a full taxable period by a fraction that has as its numerator the number of months in the period from the first day of the month in which Y's first taxable use of the vehicle after the sale occurs (the first day of the month after such month if the first taxable use after the sale occurs in the month of the sale) through the end of the taxable period, and as its denominator the number of months in the entire taxable period. Y's first use of the vehicle occurs in the month of the sale. Accordingly, Y's tax is based on the number of months in the period from the first day of October (the month following the month of the first taxable use) through the end of June, and Y owes a section 4481 tax of $322.50 (9/12 of $430) for the taxable period.
Assume the same facts as in
(e)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) If a vehicle is sold during the taxable period and a credit or refund is allowable upon the sale under § 41.4481–1(c)(4)(iii), paragraph (a)(1) of this section is applied with the following modifications:
(i) For purposes of determining the person liable for the tax determined under § 41.4481–1(c)(4)(ii), each reference to a taxable period in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is treated as a reference to the period that begins on the first day of the taxable period in which the vehicle is sold and ends on the date of sale.
(ii) For purposes of determining the person liable for the tax determined under § 41.4481–1(c)(4)(vi), each reference to a taxable period in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is treated as a reference to the period that begins on the date of the sale and ends on the last day of the taxable period in which the vehicle is sold.
(3) The application of paragraph (a) of this section may be illustrated by
(b) * * * For provisions relating to penalties for aiding and abetting an understatement of tax liability, see section 6701 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(c)
The addition reads as follows:
(i)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
(4)
(c)
(2)
(e)
(a) * * *
(4) A person that is liable for tax under § 41.4481–2(a)(1)(i)(A), (B), (C), or (D), after taking into account the modification required under § 41.4481–2(a)(2), is treated as liable for tax by the same provision of § 41.4481–2(a)(1)(i) for purposes of this section and must file a return.
(c)
(2)
A has 100 vehicles registered in its name, all of which have a taxable gross weight in excess of 55,000 pounds. Seventy-five of the vehicles are in use on July 1. Twenty-five are in dead storage as described in § 41.4482(c)–1(c). The vehicles in dead storage are not in use and they are not listed on the Schedule 1. A files Form 2290 electronically for the 75 vehicles in use on July 1 and receives a receipted Schedule 1. On August 23 of the same calendar year, A uses the remaining 25 vehicles. A does not file Form 2290 electronically but uses a paper Form 2290. A has failed to meet the requirements of section 4481(e) for the remaining 25 vehicles.
Assume the same facts as in
(d)
The additions and revision read as follows:
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of paraquat dichloride in or on the tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup 1C. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 29, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 29, 2014, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0729, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 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
• 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–2013–0729 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 December 29, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0729, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
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 paraquat including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with paraquat 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.
The primary target organ of paraquat is the lung. Evidence of lung inflammation, scarring, and compromised lung function in response to paraquat are observed throughout the toxicity database (independent of route of exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation)) in different species (rats, mice, and dogs). Effects in the respiratory tract are observed after acute, subchronic, and chronic exposures regardless of the route of exposure (oral or inhalation). However, inhalation was a more sensitive route of exposure than the oral route. With increasing durations of exposure, effects of paraquat in other organ systems are observed. These effects include liver inflammation and necrosis in rats and inflammation and necrosis of the kidneys in rats and mice. Lenticular changes in the eyes of rats were also observed with increasing durations of exposure. Importantly, the lung effects occur at doses lower than effects in these other organs systems, and so protecting for lung effects protects for all other adverse effects of paraquat.
The effects of paraquat in lungs are considered systemic effects. There are no dermal toxicity studies suitable for evaluation of systemic lung effects in the toxicity database for paraquat. Therefore, the Agency is using a dermal absorption factor of 0.3%, which was derived from dermal absorption studies conducted in humans and monkeys and an oral endpoint for dermal risk assessments.
Paraquat does not cause reproductive toxicity. Developmental toxicity in response to paraquat, when observed, always occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity. Four developmental toxicity studies (two in rats and two in mice) are available. Since effects in the
No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies conducted with paraquat up to the doses at which respiratory effects were observed (e.g. the maximum tolerated dose). There was also no evidence of immunotoxicity in response to paraquat.
Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, the Agency has concluded that there is no concern for the carcinogenic potential of paraquat. Paraquat was not mutagenic in the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by paraquat as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (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 to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for paraquat used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for paraquat. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute analysis assumed a distribution of residues based on tolerance level residues. Empirical and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default processing factors were used to modify the field trial data. Maximum screening-level percent crop treated (PCT) estimates were used for commodities for which data were available. If no percent crop treated data were available, 100 PCT was assumed.
ii.
iii.
iv.
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT in the acute dietary risk assessment for existing uses as follows:
Almond, 35%; apple, 30%; apricot, 30%; artichoke, 70%; asparagus, 20%; avocado, 5%; barley, 2.5%; green beans, 2.5%; blueberries, 20%; broccoli, 2.5%; cabbage, 10%; caneberries, 70%; cantaloupe, 10%; carrots, 2.5%; cauliflower, 2.5%; celery, 2.5%; cherry, 30%; corn, 2.5%; cotton, 40%; cucumber, 10%; dry beans/peas, 5%; figs, 5%; garlic, 2.5%; grapefruit, 15%; grapes, 30%; hazelnut, 70%; kiwifruit, 30%; lemon, 5%; lettuce, 2.5%; nectarine, 20%; olive, 2.5%; onion, 10%; orange, 15%; peach, 45%; peanut, 45%; pear, 20%; green peas, 2.5%; pecan, 10%; peppers, 15%; pistachio, 35%; plum/prune, 20%; potato, 10%; pumpkin, 10%; rice, 2.5%; sorghum, 2.5%; soybean, 2.5%; spinach, 5%; squash, 20%; strawberry, 20%; sugar beet, 2.5%; sugarcane, 10%; sunflower, 2.5%; sweet corn, 2.5%; tangelos, 10%; tangerine, 5%; tomato, 30%; walnut, 20%; watermelon, 15%; and wheat, 2.5%.
The Agency estimated the PCT in the chronic dietary risk assessment for existing uses as follows:
Almond, 25%; apple, 20%; apricot, 10%; artichoke, 30%; asparagus, 10%; avocado, 5%; barley, 1%; green beans, 1%; blueberries, 15%; broccoli, 1%; cabbage, 2.5%; caneberries, 45%;
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which paraquat may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Because of its strong cation-exchange sorption to soils, modeling is not appropriate for paraquat. In most circumstances, the levels of paraquat residues in surface or ground water are expected to be insignificant. Because it should sorb to suspended sediment, coagulation and flocculation processes in drinking water treatment plants are likely to remove any paraquat dichloride residues present in the raw water. Residues of paraquat dichloride in drinking water derived from surface supplies can therefore be assumed to be negligible.
In order to determine the most appropriate and realistic drinking water numbers to use in the human health risk assessment, the Agency reviewed a non-guideline supplemental mobility study that was conducted to evaluate the effects of traditional water treatment processes on paraquat and to determine the mobility of paraquat through soil filtration column.
3.
Paraquat is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
EPA has not found paraquat to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and paraquat does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that paraquat does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for paraquat is complete.
ii. There is no indication that paraquat is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that paraquat results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure analysis is based on tolerance level residues and maximum estimates of percent crop treated. The chronic analysis is based on tolerance level residues and average estimates of PCT. For estimating levels of paraquat in drinking water, the Agency relied on a study that evaluated the effects of traditional water treatment processes on paraquat. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by paraquat.
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.
An adequate spectrophotometric method, Method I of the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, is available for enforcing tolerances for residues of paraquat in/on plant commodities.
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 established MRLs for paraquat in or on root and tuber vegetables at 0.05 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerance of 5.0 ppm that will be established for the tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup 1C for residues of paraquat in the United States. The Agency cannot harmonize with the Codex MRL because available residue data demonstrates that application of paraquat in accordance with approved label directions could result in residues that exceed 0.05 ppm.
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of paraquat, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup 1C at 0.50 ppm.
In addition, EPA is removing the separate tolerances for cassava, ginger, potato, tanier, and true yam tuber because those are subsumed within the new tolerance for subgroup 1C.
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
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.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the insecticide prallethrin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all food commodities from use of prallethrin in food handling establishments where food and food products are held, processed, prepared and/or served, or as a wide-area mosquito adulticide at 1.0 part per million (ppm). McLaughlin Gormley King Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 29, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 29, 2014, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0659, is available at
Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0659 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 December 29, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0659, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 prallethrin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with prallethrin 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.
Prallethrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of insecticides. Pyrethroids have historically been classified into two groups, Type I and Type II, based upon chemical structure and neurotoxicological effect. Type I pyrethroids lack an alpha-cyano moiety and induce a syndrome consisting of aggressive sparring, altered sensitivity to external stimuli, and fine tremor progressing to whole-body tremor and prostration in rats. These Type I pyrethroid-specific behaviors are collectively described as the T-syndrome. Type II pyrethroids contain an alpha-cyano moiety and produce a syndrome that includes pawing, burrowing, salivation, and coarse tremors leading to choreoathetosis in rats. These Type II pyrethroid-specific behaviors are collectively described as the CS-syndrome (Verschoyle and Aldridge 1980; Lawrence and Casida 1982). Prallethrin is structurally similar to Type I pyrethroids. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) shared by pyrethroids involves the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs) in the central and peripheral nervous system, leading to changes in neuron firing, and ultimately neurotoxicity.
Prallethrin has been evaluated for a variety of toxic effects in experimental toxicity studies. Neurotoxicity was observed throughout the database and is the most sensitive endpoint. Effects were seen across species, sexes, and routes of administration. In the acute rat neurotoxicity study, decreased exploratory behavior was seen at the time of peak effect. Reduced motor activity and transient tremors were also observed in the study. In the subchronic rat neurotoxicity study, a higher arousal rate was observed in animals at the highest dose tested. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity were also observed in other toxicity studies (subchronic and chronic oral studies in dogs, developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, 21-day dermal and 28-day inhalation studies in rats). No neurotoxic effects were observed in rats in the chronic toxicity study.
Effects were also observed in the liver (rats, mice, and dogs), heart (dogs), and thyroid gland (rats). Some effects were also seen in the kidney (mice and rats). However, neurotoxicity was the most sensitive endpoint in the toxicology database, and other effects were generally seen in the presence of neurotoxicity and/or at higher doses. Liver effects observed included increased weight, elevated serum cholesterol and alkaline phosphatase
Developmental and reproduction studies are available for prallethrin. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in any of the studies. In the developmental studies, no toxic effects were noted in fetuses up to the highest doses tested. Maternal effects in the studies included tremors, salivation, exaggerated reflexes, and chromorhinorrhea. In the reproduction study, decreased pup body weights were seen during the lactation period. Effects seen in parental animals were decreased body weights and body weight gains, increased liver weights and microscopic findings in the liver, kidney, thyroid, and pituitary.
Prallethrin is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.” No tumors were observed in rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies up to the highest doses tested. In both the rat and mouse studies, the animals could have tolerated higher dose levels; however, EPA determined that dose levels were adequate to assess potential carcinogenicity.
Prallethrin tested negative in the majority of the genotoxicity studies. It also tested negative in an
Acute lethality studies conducted with prallethrin indicate moderate acute toxicity via the oral and inhalation routes of administration (Category II) and low acute toxicity via the dermal route (Categories IV). It is not irritating to the skin (Category IV) but is minimally irritating to the eye (Category IV). It is not a dermal sensitizer. The weight of evidence from the available guideline, non-guideline, mechanism of action, and pharmacokinetics studies supports characterizing the toxicological profile of pyrethroids, including prallethrin, as being rapid in onset and associated with acute, peak exposures. Also, there is no apparent increase in hazard from repeated/chronic exposures to prallethrin.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by prallethrin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the document titled “
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 no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for prallethrin used for human risk assessment are shown in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit. Based on the proposed use patterns for prallethrin, endpoints and points of departure were selected for dietary (acute only), dermal, inhalation, and incidental oral exposures.
For oral exposures (acute dietary and incidental oral), the endpoint and POD were selected from a chronic dog study in which neurotoxicity was observed within 4 weeks of dosing and was considered to have potentially resulted from a single dose, based on a weight-of-the-evidence. For dermal assessment, the endpoint was selected from the route-specific 21-day dermal study in the rat, in which clinical signs were observed within 1 to 3 days of dosing. The endpoints being used to assess oral and dermal exposures are the same (neurotoxicity); therefore, risks from those routes of exposure were combined. Although the LOAEL for inhalation is also based on neurotoxicity, derivation of the human equivalent concentrations (HECs) used for inhalation risk assessment shows that assessing inhalation exposure based on the portal-of-entry effects is protective of the systemic endpoints, including neurotoxicity. As a result, inhalation exposure was not combined with either the dermal or the oral routes of exposure.
A chronic dietary risk assessment was not conducted for prallethrin. Given what is known about pyrethroid toxicokinetics/dynamics, in general, and as there is no apparent increase in hazard from repeated/chronic exposures to prallethrin, the acute dietary exposure assessment is protective of chronic dietary exposures. Based on the toxicity profile, intermediate- or long-term exposure assessments were not conducted for adults or children.
1.
i.
The percent FHE value of 4.65% was applied to the FHE residue values, and the adulticide residues were incorporated at a level of 100% (i.e., all foods could potentially have residues resulting from the mosquito adulticide use). Residues from food handling (modified by the % FHE estimate) and mosquito adulticide treatments were combined.
ii.
For the chronic exposure assessment, EPA applied a percent FHE value of 4.65% to the FHE residue values and assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for the proposed mosquito adulticide use, just as we have done for the acute exposure assessment. This value is considered to be an overestimate of the potential for the mosquito adulticide to drift onto growing crops. Residues from the FHE and adulticide uses were then combined. Processing factors were not used because the assumption was made that foods in an FHE could be treated after processing.
iii.
iv.
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency estimates a maximum 4.65% probability that a food a person consumes contains residues as a result of treatment in an FHE at some point with any pesticide (i.e., it is not specific to prallethrin). This value was derived by taking into account the daily probability of treatment and the percent of expenditures resulting in potential residues in restaurants, commercial kitchens, food warehouses, and food processors. For both the acute and chronic assessments, this value was used for the FHE component of the residue for all commodities with the exception of drinking water.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including
Specific information on the methodology to estimate PCT can be found in the document entitled “
2.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), Tier II Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), and the Pesticide Flooded Application Model (PFAM), the surface water estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) value of 0.591 parts per billion (ppb) was used in the acute assessment and that the annual average surface water EDWC value of 0.0375 ppb was used in the chronic assessment.
3.
Prallethrin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: A variety of residential pet, indoor and outdoor uses for pests found on turf, and in homes and commercial settings, including food handling establishments. However, for purposes of this assessment, only registered residential products and use sites with the highest application rates or percent active ingredient (a.i.) were assessed because they are representative of the worst case exposure scenarios for the exposed populations.
EPA assessed potential residential handler exposure scenarios resulting from mixing/loading/applying sprays to lawns using hose-end and backpack sprayers because exposure from treating lawns were higher than from other application methods and sites. A quantitative assessment was not required for handling of total release fogger products since the labels state that the room/house must be vacated immediately by the user once initiated.
EPA assessed post-application dermal exposure for adults and children as well as incidental oral (i.e., hand-to-mouth) exposure for children resulting from contact with residues deposited on turf and indoor surfaces following application with aerial and truck-mounted fogger mosquito vector control applications, hand-held spray applications on turf and lawn, and indoor aerosol foggers, respectively. Adult and child post-application inhalation exposure resulting from both aerial and truck-mounted mosquito vector control applications were also assessed. A quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for turf or indoor aerosol foggers because inhalation exposure from these application methods is anticipated to be negligible. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
The Agency has determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins share a common mechanism of toxicity (go to
Prallethrin is included in the pyrethroids/pyrethrins cumulative risk assessment. No dietary, residential or aggregate risk estimates of concern have been identified in the single chemical assessment. In the cumulative assessment, residential exposure was the greatest contributor to the total exposure. An existing residential turf use for prallethrin was evaluated to determine the potential contribution it would have on the cumulative risk assessment. Although the turf use was considered the main contributor for residential exposure, the turf assessment indicated that exposure from turf would not impact the residential component of the cumulative risk estimates for the pyrethroids.
Therefore, since the proposed mosquito adulticide contributes far less exposure than the registered turf uses, there will be no impact on the residential component of the cumulative risk estimates.
Dietary exposures make a minor contribution to the total pyrethroid exposure. The dietary exposure assessment performed in support of the pyrethroid cumulative was much more highly refined than that performed for prallethrin. In addition, for the prallethrin risk assessment, the most sensitive apical endpoint in the prallethrin database was selected to derive the POD. Further, the POD selected for prallethrin is specific to prallethrin, whereas the POD selected for the cumulative assessment was based on common mechanism of action data that are appropriate for all 20 pyrethroids included in the cumulative assessment. Dietary exposure to prallethrin residues resulting from the proposed mosquito adulticide use over all crops will contribute very little to the dietary exposure to prallethrin alone; therefore, the proposed use will make an insignificant contribution to dietary risk to the pyrethroids as a whole.
1.
2.
High-dose studies assessing what dose results in lethality to 50% of the tested population (LD
3.
i. The toxicology database for prallethrin is considered complete with respect to guideline toxicity studies for prallethrin; however, the Agency lacks additional information to fully characterize the potential for juvenile sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of pyrethroids. In light of the literature studies indicating a possibility of increased sensitivity in juvenile rats at high doses, EPA identified a need, and requested proposals for, additional non-guideline studies to evaluate the potential for sensitivity in juvenile rats. A group of pyrethroid registrants is currently conducting those studies. Pending the results of those studies, however, the available toxicity studies for prallethrin can be used to characterize toxic effects including potential developmental and reproductive toxicity, as well as neurotoxicity. Acceptable developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, reproduction studies in rats, neurotoxicity studies (acute, subchronic, and developmental) in rats are available. In addition, route-specific dermal and inhalation toxicity studies are available. The Immunotoxicity study has been waived. As discussed in Unit IV.D.2., EPA concludes that the 3x FQPA SF will be adequate for protecting infants and children less than 6 years old.
ii. After reviewing the extensive body of data and peer-reviewed literature on pyrethroids, the Agency has reached a number of conclusions regarding fetal and juvenile sensitivity for pyrethroids, including the following:
• Based on an evaluation of over 70 guideline toxicity studies for 24 pyrethroids submitted to the Agency, including prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and pre- and postnatal multi-generation reproduction toxicity studies and DNTs in rats in support of pyrethroid registrations, there is no evidence that pyrethroids directly impact developing fetuses. None of the studies show any indications of fetal toxicity at doses that do not cause maternal toxicity.
• Increased susceptibility was seen in offspring animals in the DNT study with the pyrethroid zeta-cypermethrin (decreased pup body weights) and DNT and reproduction studies with another pyrethroid beta-cyfluthrin (decreased body weights and tremors). However, the reductions in body weight and the other non-specific effects occur at higher doses than neurotoxicity, the effect of concern for pyrethroids. The available developmental and reproduction guideline studies in rats with zeta-cypermethrin did not show increased sensitivity in the young to neurotoxic effects. Overall, findings of increased sensitivity in juvenile animals in pyrethroid studies are rare. Therefore, the residual concern for the postnatal effects is reduced.
• High-dose LD
•
iii. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to dietary exposure. The dietary exposure assessments are based on highly conservative residue levels for the mosquito adulticide use and for the FHE uses. Furthermore, conservative, upper-bound assumptions were used to determine exposure through drinking water and residential sources, such that these exposures have not been underestimated.
Taking all of this information into account, EPA has reduced the FQPA SF for women of child-bearing age because there is no evidence in the over 70 guideline toxicity studies submitted to the Agency that pyrethroids directly impact developing fetuses. In addition, none of the studies show any indications of fetal toxicity at doses that do not cause maternal toxicity. Because there remains some uncertainty as to juvenile sensitivity due to the findings in the high-dose LD
a. Data from developmental and reproductive toxicity guideline studies with prallethrin that show no sensitivity.
b. Data showing that the potential sensitivity at high doses is likely due to pharmacokinetics.
c. A rat PBPK model predicting a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid concentration in the juvenile brain compared to adults at high doses due to age-dependent pharmacokinetics.
d. Data indicating that the rat is a conservative model compared to the human based on species-specific pharmacodynamics of homologous sodium channel isoforms.
iv. Although EPA has required additional data on transferable residues from treated turf for prallethrin, EPA is confident that it has not underestimated turf exposure due to the conservativeness of the default turf transfer value and conservative assumptions in the short-term turf assessment procedures (e.g., assuming residues do not degrade over the thirty day assessment period and assuming high-end activities on turf for every day of the assessment period). The additional data on turf transferable residues have been required in case requirement of exposure assessments is needed on the future, and to further EPA's general understanding of the availability of pesticide residues on turf.
For several reasons, EPA has determined that reliable data show that a 3x factor is protective of the safety of infants and children less than 6 years of age. First, it is likely that the extensive guideline studies with pyrethroids, which indicate that increased sensitivity in juvenile animals in pyrethroid studies is rare, better characterize the potential sensitivity of juvenile animals than the LD
Specific information about the reevaluation of the FQPA SF for pyrethroids may be found in document ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0746–0011.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A method based on gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), ID #262, is adequate for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of prallethrin in or on crop commodities. The reported limits of quantitation (LOQs) are 0.01 to 0.10 ppm, depending on the commodity. The limits of detection (LODs) were reported to be 0.004 to 0.06 ppm, depending on the commodity. Multiresidue methods testing for prallethrin have not been conducted, and is not required, based on previous Agency discussions with the petitioner on November 3, 2010.
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 section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide prallethrin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all raw agricultural commodities and processed food from use of prallethrin in food handling establishments where food and food products are held, processed, prepared and/or served, or as a wide-area mosquito adulticide at 1.0 part per million (ppm). Compliance with the tolerance level specified is to be determined by measuring only prallethrin, 2-methyl-4-oxo-3-(2-propyn-1-yl)-2-cyclopenten-1-yl-2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methyl-1-propen-1-yl)cyclopropanecarboxylate.
EPA is revising 40 CFR 180.545 to clarify the tolerance. EPA is merging paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) together into a new paragraph (a). EPA is removing paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) as they contain language that is more appropriately regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as use directions on the label.
This action establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 action 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues final specifications for the commercial
Effective November 1, 2014.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available upon request from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978–281–9341.
The tilefish fishery is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council under the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The management unit specified in the Tilefish FMP is all tilefish (
Detailed background information regarding the status of the tilefish stock and the development of the 2015–2017 specifications for this fishery was provided in the proposed rule to implement these specifications (September 3, 2014; 79 FR 52293). That information is not repeated here.
This action specifies the allowed harvest limits for the commercial tilefish fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. The total allowable landings (TAL) for the commercial fishery are divided between Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) shareholders, which are allocated 95 percent of the TAL, and the incidental fishery, which receives 5 percent of the TAL. Table 1 contains the harvest quotas implemented by this action.
The Council recommended the same quota for 2017 as for 2016, because, even though stock assessment projections indicate that the quota could be increased slightly, the Tilefish FMP has used a constant landings management strategy since it was implemented in 2001. The tilefish industry has been supportive of this approach, and stated that they benefit from the predictability that a stable quota provides. At the urging of the tilefish industry, and because the lower harvest in 2017 would likely support further growth in this stock, the Council decided that the value of quota stability between 2016 and 2017 outweighed the potential gain from the small amount of quota increase that could have been realized in 2017. As in previous years, no tilefish quota has been allocated for research set-aside. The Council has the opportunity to review updated information on the status of the tilefish fishery each year, and may choose to recommend changes to these specifications before the 2016 or 2017 fishing years.
The regulation at § 648.292(b)(1) specifies that the TAL for each fishing year will be 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg), unless modified by the specifications process. If not changed, this default value in the regulations may be confusing, because this action is establishing different TALs for 2015, 2016, and 2017 that would not appear in the regulations. To avoid confusion, this action revises the regulations to remove this reference to a specific TAL value.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on September 18, 2014. One comment was received on the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication. Avoiding a delay in effectiveness past the start of the 2015 fishing year would avoid confusion and potential economic harm to the commercial tilefish industry. The 2015 tilefish fishing year starts on November 1, 2014. If new specifications are not effective on that date, the regulations at § 648.292(a) state the current harvest quotas would automatically continue into the new fishing year. Therefore, NMFS would be required to issue initial IFQ permits using the 2014 quota amount, and then reissue those permits using the lower 2015 quota once this rule became effective. Representatives of the commercial tilefish industry have been active participants in the Council's development of these specifications, and are anticipating the 2015 quota amount implemented by this action. Issuing two sets of permits based on different quota amounts in a short period of time could cause unnecessary confusion and paperwork for the commercial tilefish industry. If IFQ shareholders fished or leased their allocation in the interim, they could be responsible for a quota overage once the new 2015 quotas became effective. Under the regulations, such an overage would need to be paid back in the following fishing year, which would decrease fishing opportunities in 2016. Because the Council did not submit the EA until late June, NMFS was unable to prepare this rule earlier while still allowing for an appropriate comment period. However, NMFS must also consider the need of the tilefish industry to have adequate prior notice of changes in the harvest quota. As noted above, the commercial tilefish industry has been a participant in the Council's process of developing these specifications and is anticipating these measures. Therefore, the benefits of implementing these quota specifications on November 1, 2014, outweigh the benefit of the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
The FRFA included in this final rule was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of the EA/IRFA is analysis is available from the Council (see
The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated here.
A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are contained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here.
One comment was submitted on the proposed rule. However, it was not specific to the IRFA or to the economic impacts of the rule more generally. No changes were made from the proposed rule.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross revenues) of up to $20.5 million for finfish businesses. A small business in the recreational fishery (i.e., party or charter vessel operations) is a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. The 2015, 2016, and 2017 tilefish quotas could affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for tilefish. Vessel permit data show that in 2013 there were 1,827 vessels that held a valid commercial tilefish permit and 393 vessels held a valid party/charter tilefish permit. However, not all of those vessels are active participants in the fishery. According to dealer-reported landings data, 141 vessels landed tilefish in fishing year 2013. In addition, according to vessel trip report data, 25 party/charter vessels reported catching tilefish in 2013. Changes in quotas under this action are not expected to affect the effort of vessels that land tilefish incidentally (e.g., otter trawl vessels) because the catch and/or landings of tilefish incidentally occur as these vessels target other species, and their fishing behavior is not expected to be driven by the level of the incidental tilefish quota.
Some of the vessels with tilefish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. Firms are classified as finfish or for-hire firms based on the activity from which they derive the most revenue. All of the party/charter firms fall within the definition of a small business according to the 2010–2012 average revenues; however, some of these firms also landed tilefish commercially. If the contribution of tilefish commercial receipts is more than 50 percent of the total, the party/charter firm is considered a commercial operation. Using the $20.5 million cutoff for commercial finfish firms, there are 190 firms that are small and 4 that are large assuming average revenues for the 2010–2012 period. The majority of the permitted vessels readily fall within the definition of small business.
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
Specification of commercial quota is constrained by the conservation objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 2015 TAL contained in this final rule is 12 percent lower than the 2014 TAL, while the 2016 and 2017 TALs are 9 percent lower. However, this is the result of the Council's risk policy, which requires an appropriate buffer between the OFL and ABC that, in turn, lowers the TAL compared to 2014. Therefore, these lower catch levels in 2015 are consistent with the best available scientific information and intended to prevent overfishing from occurring.
As described in the proposed rule for this action, two other alternatives were considered that would have resulted in higher vessel revenue than these specifications. The status quo specifications (Alternative 2) were not consistent with the Council's risk policy. Alternative 3 would have increased the TAL in 2017. However, the tilefish industry preferred the same TALs in 2016 and 2017 under these final specifications to maintain stability in the fishery and promote future stock growth, which could lead to increased TALs and associated economic benefits in the future.
All affected IFQ shareholders will receive decreases in their tilefish 2015 IFQ allocations in comparison to their respective tilefish 2014 IFQ allocations. However, the magnitude of the decrease varies depending on the shareholder's relative percent in the total IFQ quota.
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 small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the tilefish fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from NMFS (see
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
(b)
(2) The sum of the TAL and the estimated discards shall be less than or equal to the ACT.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear, vessels using pot gear, and vessels using jig gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska management area (GOA). This action is necessary to allow the 2014 total allowable catch of Pacific cod in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA to be harvested.
Effective October 24, 2014, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2014.
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 8,582 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014). The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 900 mt of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A).
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional Administrator has also determined that catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear, vessels using pot gear, and vessels using jig gear currently have the capacity to harvest this excess allocation and reallocates 50 mt to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear, 550 mt to vessels using pot gear, and 300 mt to vessels using jig gear.
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA included in the final 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014) are revised as follows: 7,682 mt for catcher vessels using trawl gear, 363 mt for vessels using hook-and-line gear, 9,042 mt for vessels using pot gear, and 873 mt for vessels using jig gear.
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 reallocation of Pacific cod specified from catcher vessels using trawl gear to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear, vessels using pot gear, and vessels using jig gear. Since the fishery is currently ongoing, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. 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 as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 23, 2014.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska management area (GOA). This action is necessary to allow the 2014 total allowable catch of Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA to be harvested.
Effective October 24, 2014, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2014.
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.
The 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 797 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014). The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) has determined that vessels using jig gear will not be able to harvest 500 mt of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(A).
In accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), the Regional Administrator has also determined that vessels using pot gear currently have the capacity to harvest this excess allocation and reallocates 500 mt to vessels using pot gear.
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA included in the final 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014) are revised as follows: 297 mt for vessels using jig gear and 11,352 mt for vessels using pot gear.
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 reallocation of Pacific cod specified from vessels using jig gear to vessels using pot gear. Since the fishery is currently ongoing, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. 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 as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 23, 2014.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible producers of onions grown in South Texas to determine whether they favor continuance of the marketing order that regulates the handling of onions produced in the production area. This is the second referendum being conducted this year; the first was conducted in May 2014. The results of the first referendum revealed that the producer list used to mail ballots was not updated; consequently, USDA has determined that a second referendum should be conducted using an updated producer list to ensure all eligible producers have an opportunity to vote on whether to continue their Federal marketing order.
The referendum will be conducted from November 3 through November 17, 2014. To vote in this referendum, producers must have produced onions within the designated production area in Texas during the period of August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013.
Copies of the marketing order may be obtained from the referendum agents at 1124 First Street South, Winter Haven, FL 33880, or the Office of the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or Internet:
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1124 First Street South, Winter Haven, FL 33880; Telephone: (863) 324–3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Pursuant to Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR Part 959), hereinafter referred to as the “order,” and the applicable provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act,” it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the order is favored by the producers. The referendum shall be conducted from November 3 through November 17, 2014, among onion producers in the production area. Only Texas onion producers that were engaged in the production of onions grown in South Texas during the period of August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013, may participate in the continuance referendum.
Section 959.84 of the order requires USDA to conduct a continuance referendum every six years. The May 2014 referendum (79 FR 14440) was the first to be conducted since adding this requirement to the order on February 29, 2008. During the subsequent tabulation of the May 2014 referendum ballots, USDA learned that the producer list used to mail the ballots was not accurate. As a result, USDA has determined that a second referendum should be conducted using an updated producer list, thereby ensuring all eligible producers have an opportunity to vote on the future of the marketing order.
USDA has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means for determining whether producers favor the continuation of marketing order programs. USDA would consider termination of the order if fewer than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum and producers of less than two-thirds of the volume of onions grown in South Texas represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA will consider the results of the continuance referendum. USDA will also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to producers, handlers, and consumers in determining whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the ballot materials to be used in the referendum have been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. It has been estimated that it will take an average of 20 minutes for each of the approximately 55 producers of onions grown in South Texas to cast a ballot. Participation is voluntary. Ballots postmarked after November 17, 2014, will not be included in the vote tabulation.
Doris Jamieson and Christian D. Nissen of the Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, are hereby designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct this referendum. The procedure applicable to the referendum shall be the “Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in Connection With Marketing Orders for Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as Amended” (7 CFR 900.400–900.407).
Ballots will be mailed to all producers of record and may also be obtained from the referendum agents, or from their appointees.
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule with request for public comment.
The Bureau is proposing two modifications to the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Final Rule (TILA–RESPA Final Rule): An adjustment to the timing requirement for revised disclosures when the consumer locks a rate or extends a rate lock after the initial disclosures are provided; and an amendment to permit language related to new construction loans to be included on the Loan Estimate form. The Bureau also is proposing to amend the 2013 Loan Originator Final Rule to provide for placement of the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ID (NMLSR ID) on the integrated disclosures. Additionally, the Bureau is proposing technical corrections, including citation and cross-reference updates, and wording changes for clarification purposes to various provisions of Regulations X and Z as amended or adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule.
Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB–2014–0028 or RIN 3170–AA48, 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 generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Jaydee DiGiovanni, Policy and Procedure Analyst; Richard Arculin and David Friend, Counsels; Office of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700.
In November 2013, pursuant to sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau issued the Integrated Mortgage Disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (TILA–RESPA Final Rule),
This rule proposes two amendments to Regulation Z provisions adopted by the 2013 TILA–RESPA Final Rule. First, the Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D), which states that, in order to revise the estimated amounts used to determine good faith pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(1), creditors must redisclose interest rate dependent charges and loan terms on the date that the rate is locked. The Bureau is proposing to relax the timing requirement to state that creditors must provide a revised disclosure no later than the next business day after the date the rate is locked, instead of the same date. Second, the Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.37(m) to provide for the placement of language relating to certain new construction loans on the Loan Estimate form that is required in order for creditors to redisclose estimated charges.
The Bureau also is proposing several corrections, updates, and wording changes for clarification purposes that are non-substantive in nature, such as (1) technical corrections and corrected or updated citations and cross-references in the regulatory text and commentary adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule; (2) minor wording changes throughout regulatory provisions and commentary adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule for additional clarity; and (3) an amendment to § 1026.36(g)(2)(ii), adopted by the 2013 Loan Originator Final Rule, to provide for placement of the NMLSR ID on the integrated disclosures.
The Bureau is seeking comment on these amendments, with a 30-day comment period from the date of issuance of this proposed rule. The Bureau intends to finalize these proposed amendments quickly in order to provide industry adequate time to implement any changes that result from this proposal by the August 1, 2015 effective date.
In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted by Congress, which transferred rulemaking authority under both TILA and RESPA to the Bureau and, under sections 1032(f), 1098, and 1100A, mandated that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme under TILA and RESPA and propose for public comment rules and model disclosures that integrate the TILA and RESPA disclosures by July 21, 2012. 12 U.S.C. 2603(a), 5532(f); 15 U.S.C. 1604(b). In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act amended both statutes to mandate that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme for use by lenders or creditors in complying comprehensively with the disclosure requirements discussed above. Section 1098(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 4(a) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions “which includes the disclosure requirements of this section and section 5, in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [TILA] that, taken together, may apply to a transaction that is subject to both or either provisions of law.” 12 U.S.C. 2603(a). Similarly, section 1100A(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA section 105(b) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions which “includes the disclosure requirements of this title in conjunction with the
The Bureau issued proposed integrated disclosure forms and rules for public comment on July 9, 2012 (the TILA–RESPA Proposal or proposal).
In early 2014, the Bureau initiated efforts to support industry implementation of the TILA–RESPA Integrated Disclosure Final Rule. These efforts include: (1) The publication of a plain-language compliance guide and guide to forms to help industry understand the new rules, including updates to the guides, as needed; (2) an ongoing series of webinars to address common interpretive questions; (3) roundtables with industry, including creditors, settlement service providers, and vendors, to discuss implementation; (4) participation in conferences and forums; and (5) close collaboration with other regulators, including state regulators, on implementation of the Final Rule, including coordination on consistent examination procedures. More information regarding the Bureau's TILA–RESPA implementation initiative can be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation Web site at
As part of the initiative to support ongoing implementation efforts, the Bureau has conducted extensive outreach to multiple stakeholders since publication of the Final Rule. Based on that extensive outreach, the Bureau believes these proposed amendments to be relatively straightforward and mostly technical in nature. Accordingly, the Bureau expects to be able to finalize this proposal in sufficient time for creditors and other stakeholders to be able to implement the final changes prior to the August 1, 2015 effective date.
The Bureau is issuing this proposed rule pursuant to its authority under TILA, RESPA, and the Dodd-Frank Act. 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's consumer protection functions relating to TILA mortgage disclosures and the HUD Secretary's consumer protection functions relating to RESPA.
Section 1032(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that, “[n]ot later than one year after the designated transfer date [of July 21, 2011], the Bureau shall propose for public comment rules and model disclosures that combine the disclosures required under [TILA] and sections 4 and 5 of [RESPA], into a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions covered by those laws, unless the Bureau determines that any proposal issued by the [Board] and [HUD] carries out the same purpose.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(f). In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 105(b) of TILA and section 4(a) of RESPA to require the integration of the TILA disclosures and the disclosures required by sections 4 and 5 of RESPA.
Although Congress imposed this integrated disclosure requirement, it did not harmonize the underlying statutes. In particular, TILA and RESPA establish different timing requirements for disclosing mortgage credit terms and costs to consumers and require that those disclosures be provided by different parties. TILA generally requires that, within three business days of receiving the consumer's application and at least seven business days before consummation of certain mortgage transactions, creditors must provide consumers a good faith estimate of the costs of credit.
The Dodd-Frank Act did not reconcile these and other statutory differences. Therefore, to meet the Dodd-Frank Act's express requirement to integrate the disclosures required by TILA and RESPA, the Bureau was required to do so. Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(f), TILA section 105(b), and RESPA section 4(a) provide the Bureau with authority to issue regulations that reconcile certain provisions of TILA and RESPA to carry out Congress' mandate to integrate the statutory disclosure requirements.
This proposed rule also relies on the rulemaking and exception authorities specifically granted to the Bureau by TILA, RESPA, and the Dodd-Frank Act, including the authorities discussed below.
Historically, TILA section 105(a) has served as a broad source of authority for rules that promote the informed use of credit through required disclosures and substantive regulation of certain practices. Dodd-Frank Act section 1100A clarified the Bureau's section 105(a) authority by amending that section to provide express authority to prescribe regulations that contain “additional requirements” that the Bureau finds are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance. This amendment clarified the Bureau's authority to exercise TILA section 105(a) to prescribe requirements beyond those specifically listed in the statute that meet the standards outlined in section 105(a). The Dodd-Frank Act also clarified the Bureau's rulemaking authority over certain high-cost mortgages pursuant to section 105(a). As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a) authority to make adjustments and exceptions to the requirements of TILA applies to all transactions subject to TILA, except with respect to the provisions of TILA section 129
Section 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such rules and regulations and to make such interpretations and grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of RESPA. One purpose of RESPA is to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate that will result in more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers of settlement costs. RESPA section 2(b); 12 U.S.C. 2601(b). In addition, in enacting RESPA, Congress found that consumers are entitled to be “provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and [to be] protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices in some areas of the country.” RESPA section 2(a); 12 U.S.C. 2601(a). In the past, RESPA section 19(a) has served as a broad source of authority to prescribe disclosures and substantive requirements to carry out the purposes of RESPA.
In developing rules under RESPA section 19(a), the Bureau has considered the purposes of RESPA, including to effect certain changes in the settlement process that will result in more effective advance disclosure of settlement costs.
Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(c) provides that, in prescribing rules pursuant to section 1032, the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(c). Accordingly, in developing the TILA–RESPA Final Rule under Dodd-Frank Act section 1032(a), the Bureau considered available studies, reports, and other evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services. Moreover, the Bureau has considered the evidence developed through its consumer testing of the integrated disclosures as well as prior testing done by the Board and HUD regarding TILA and RESPA disclosures. See part III of the TILA–RESPA Final Rule for a discussion of the Bureau's consumer testing.
In developing rules for residential mortgage loans under Dodd-Frank Act section 1405(b), the Bureau has considered the purposes of improving consumer awareness and understanding of transactions involving residential mortgage loans through the use of disclosures, and the interests of consumers and the public.
The Bureau is proposing to amend § 1024.5(d) to remove the cross-references to § 1024.21(b) and (c) and replace them with the appropriate cross-reference to § 1024.33(a).
In addition to the amendments to Regulation Z discussed below, the Bureau is proposing non-substantive technical corrections, including citation and cross-reference updates as well as wording changes for clarification purposes, to various provisions of Regulation Z as amended or adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule. The proposed technical corrections are to §§ 1026.37(o) and 1026.38(e) and (k); to commentary to §§ 1026.37(b), (c), and (h) and 1026.38(a) and (e); and to Appendix H. Where appropriate, some of these technical corrections and wording changes are discussed in the applicable sections below.
As the Bureau acknowledged in the TILA–RESPA Final Rule,
In the TILA–RESPA Proposal, proposed § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) retained the same basic approach, but the Bureau expressed concern that allowing creditors three business days to provide revised disclosures after a rate is locked could harm consumers through creditors engaging in rent-seeking behavior or attempting to circumvent RESPA and Regulation X. The Bureau
The Bureau sought comment on the frequency and magnitude of revisions to the interest rate dependent charges, the frequency of cancellations of contractual agreements related to interest rate dependent charges, such as rate lock agreements, and the reasons for such revisions and cancellations. The Bureau received few comments specific to proposed § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) and finalized § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) as proposed with some additional clarifications. The Bureau stated that, if the interest rate is set without a rate lock agreement, § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) does not apply. The Bureau further explained that it intended § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) only to apply in situations where a rate lock agreement has been entered into between the creditor and borrower or where such agreement has expired. The Bureau also stated that, in its view, creditors should not need any additional time beyond the date the rate is locked to provide revised disclosures because the creditor controls when it executes the rate lock agreement.
As adopted by the Final Rule, § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) provides for revised disclosures when there are changes in interest rate dependent charges due to a rate lock, extension, or re-lock. Section 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) states that, in order to revise the estimated amounts used to determine good faith pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(1), the creditor shall provide a revised version of the disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) to the consumer with the revised interest rate, the points disclosed pursuant to § 1026.37(f)(1), lender credits, and any other interest rate dependent charges and terms, on the date the rate is locked.
As part of its regulatory implementation outreach, the Bureau has received significant feedback on this provision since the Final Rule was published. Numerous industry stakeholders have presented information that suggests that creditors may not control when a rate is locked to the same extent the Bureau believed when finalizing the rule, and have identified operational challenges due to the same-day redisclosure requirement in § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D).
In light of this information and for reasons more fully discussed below, the Bureau believes the same-day redisclosure requirement could potentially create a consumer disadvantage. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the same-day redisclosure requirement warrants reconsideration, and is proposing to amend § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) and its commentary to adjust this timing requirement. First, the Bureau is reassessing the extent to which the creditor controls when a rate lock agreement arises in some circumstances. The Final Rule states that creditors generally should be able to control when a rate lock agreement is executed, even if a consumer requests a rate lock the business day before. However, the Bureau believes that creditors may not always control when the agreement is formed in all situations. Moreover, flexibilities that exist under existing practices may be advantageous to consumers. For example, some creditors permit the consumer, or loan originator working on behalf of the consumer, to lock the interest rate unilaterally at any point during a business day or even after business hours. Under these practices, the consumer has the flexibility to lock the rate and form that agreement late in a business day or after business hours.
The Bureau believes this flexibility may be beneficial to consumers, because it allows them to lock interest rates on a date and time of their choosing without time restrictions being imposed by the creditor. The same-day redisclosure requirement could restrict this flexibility and reduce consumers' ability to determine when their rates may be locked. If creditors are required to provide revised disclosures to consumers the same date that the rate is locked, and a consumer asks to lock a rate late in the business day or after hours, creditors may be unable to provide a revised Loan Estimate that same date. Given the potential consequences of losing the ability to reset the applicable tolerances for interest rate-dependent charges pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(3), the Bureau believes creditors may respond to the Final Rule by limiting consumers' ability to lock rates at the time of their choice. Creditors may do this either by imposing cut-off times after which consumers are unable to lock their interest rates until the next day or by refusing to lock the rate contractually until the business day after the consumer requests a rate lock. The Bureau believes that both reactions to the Final Rule could be disadvantageous to consumers.
If creditors impose cut-off times, consumers would be limited in the times of day that they or their representatives could lock interest rates. This could be problematic or inconvenient to consumers, particularly those who are in different time zones than their creditors, and could result in consumers missing the applicable windows to lock on a day of their choice and having to wait until the next business day to do so. Alternatively, the Bureau believes some creditors may be able to provide revised disclosures on the same date that a rate lock agreement is formed if those creditors only allow consumers to request the rate at a time of their choosing, and then later execute or form a binding agreement with the consumer. However, the Bureau believes this result could present other challenges to consumers. For example, consumers may be confused if they believe they are locking an interest rate at a certain time, but in fact are merely requesting rates that are not contractually binding until the creditor accepts the request, which may not be until the next business day. Accordingly, the Bureau believes that the same-day redisclosure requirement could create implementation challenges to industry that may result in unintended reduced consumer flexibility in locking or resetting floating interest rates.
For these reasons, the Bureau believes the same-day redisclosure requirement warrants reconsideration. The Bureau maintains that there is a benefit to consumers in receiving the revised Loan Estimate as early as possible to enable the consumer to evaluate the information. The Bureau also believes that a creditor should be able to provide a revised Loan Estimate based on interest rate dependent charges more quickly in comparison to other types of disclosures, because the creditor may not need to obtain information from other parties, such as third party vendors. However, the Bureau believes that providing for redisclosure on the next business day after the rate is locked would still further these purposes but without the operational challenges presented by a same-day redisclosure requirement. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to revise § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) to provide that creditors shall redisclose the interest rate and interest rate dependent charges no later than the next business day after the date the interest rate is locked. The proposal also would make conforming changes to comments 19(e)(3)(iv)(D)–1 and 19(e)(4)(i)–2, which provide illustrations of the provision's application.
The Bureau seeks comment on whether there is potential for consumer
The Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.36(g)(2)(ii) to conform to the requirements adopted by the 2013 Loan Originator Compensation Final Rule. Section 1026.36(g)(2) lists the specific loan documents that must contain the loan originator's name and NMLSR ID. The Bureau explained in the 2013 Loan Originator Compensation Final Rule that it was reserving § 1026.36(g)(2)(ii) for references to the integrated disclosures the Bureau was expecting to adopt in the final rule implementing the 2012 TILA–RESPA Integration Proposal. The disclosures referenced are those required by § 1026.19(e) and (f) in the TILA–RESPA Final Rule. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.36(g)(2)(ii) to include in the list of loan documents the disclosures described § 1026.19(e) and (f), as adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule.
Section 1026.37(b)(6) requires creditors to disclose that adjustments to principal, interest, and periodic payment may occur after consummation, including the date when the adjustment may first occur. As stated in comment 37(b)(8)–1, for adjustments that occur less than 24 months after consummation, the Bureau intended that date to be disclosed as a month, whereas for adjustments that occur after 24 months, as a whole year. Thus, an adjustment that first occurs 20 months after consummation would be disclosed as occurring in “month 20,” whereas an adjustment that occurs 37 months after consummation would disclosed as occurring in “year 3,” not in “year 3.1.” Comment 37(b)(6)–1, which provides for this timing mechanism, implies that comment 37(a)(10)–3 should be used to determine all adjustments that occur in periods not in whole years. While the Bureau intended that comment 37(a)(10)–3.ii be used to guide creditors regarding how to disclose terms of less than 24 months, comment 37(a)(10)–3.i provides that decimals should be used for periods greater than 24 months. The Bureau did not intend this guidance to be applicable to § 1026.37(b)(6); rather, any such period should be disclosed in whole years as stated in comment 37(b)(8)–1. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to revise comment 37(b)(6)–1 to align it with the commentary 37(b)(8) and ensure consistency in the reporting of time periods. Specifically, the Bureau proposes that guidance provided in 37(a)(10)–3 only should be referenced when reporting increases that occur less than 24 months after consummation but does not equate to a number of whole years or a number of days less than a week. For all other increases, whole years should be used in accordance with comment 37(b)(8)–1.
The Bureau is proposing to move the reference to the disclosure of mortgage insurance premiums as “0” where no escrow account is established to pay charges, such as property taxes or homeowners association fees, from comment 37(c)(ii)–2 and move it to comment 37(c)(2)(iii)–1. The Bureau believes that this reference is better suited in comment 37(c)(2)(iii), which provides for escrow disclosure. The Bureau also is proposing to amend comment 37(c)(2)(iii)–1 to state that the escrow payment should be disclosed as “—” if an escrow account is established for the payment of amounts identified in § 1026.37(c)(4)(ii), but no escrow payment is required with a particular periodic payment or range of payments, consistent with the disclosure of mortgage insurance premiums in comment 37(c)(2)(ii)–1.
The Bureau is proposing to revise comment 37(c)(4)(iv)–2 to remove the reference to property taxes and homeowner's insurance to clarify that the amounts disclosed pursuant to § 1026.37(c)(4)(ii) may be paid by the creditor using some funds from the escrow account.
The Bureau is proposing to revise comment 37(h)(1)(ii)–1 to reflect the intended meaning of the regulatory text in § 1026.37(h)(1)(ii), which requires disclosure, in the Loan Estimate, of the amount, expressed as a negative number, of any closing costs that are to be paid from the loan proceeds. The Bureau explained in the preamble to the Final Rule that the amount disclosed under § 1026.37(h)(1)(ii) is determined by subtracting the estimated total amount of payments to third parties not otherwise disclosed pursuant to § 1026.37(f) and (g) from the total loan amount so long as the amount is a positive number and does not exceed the total closing costs disclosed under § 1026.37(g)(6), but comment 37(h)(1)(ii)–1 referenced “lender credits” instead of “closing costs.” Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to remove the words “lender credits” and replace them with the words “closing costs” to harmonize with the preamble, which correctly reflected the Bureau's intent.
Section 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) governs redisclosures on new construction loans when the creditor reasonably expects settlement to occur more than 60 days after providing the initial Loan Estimate. Section 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) provides that a creditor may issue a revised disclosure if the original disclosure clearly and conspicuously states the creditor may issue revised disclosures at any time prior to 60 days before consummation. If no such statement is provided, the creditor may not issue revised disclosures, except as otherwise provided in § 1026.19(f).
The Bureau intended to permit creditors that make new construction loans and reasonably expect settlement to occur more than 60 calendar days after the initial Loan Estimate is provided to state on the Loan Estimate that the creditor may issue revised disclosures. However, § 1026.37, which prescribes the content for the disclosures provided on the Loan Estimate pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(1)(i), does not permit the creditor to state that it may issue revised disclosures. The proposal would add a new provision allowing the creditor to make the statement on the Loan Estimate form. Creditors would thus be able to preserve
The Bureau is proposing to add new § 1026.37(m)(8), under the master heading “Additional Information About This Loan” and under the heading “Other Considerations,” and believes the § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) language is appropriately placed in this section of § 1026.37. The Bureau also is proposing to add new comment 37(m)(8)–1 to state that placement of the language here satisfies the “clear and conspicuous” standard set forth in § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F). The Bureau invites comments on whether this is the most appropriate placement or if there are other areas on the Loan Estimate form that are more appropriate.
The Bureau is proposing to add new commentary to § 1026.38(a)(3)(vi) to clarify that, in the case of multiple properties securing the transaction, the property address for all properties must be disclosed on the Closing Disclosure. Comment 37(a)(6)–3 provides that, where more than one property secures the credit transaction, all property addresses securing the transaction must be disclosed on the Loan Estimate pursuant to § 1026.37(a)(6). The Bureau believes that the requirement to disclose all real property securing the transaction must also be applied to the Closing Disclosure to ensure consistency between the two forms.
Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to add new comment 38(a)(3)(vi)–2 to clarify that the addresses of all properties securing the transaction must be disclosed on the Closing Disclosure. Furthermore, proposed comment 38(a)(3)(vi)–2 would clarify that additional pages may be appended to the end of the form with the real property information if there is not enough space on the Closing Disclosure.
The Bureau is proposing to amend comment 38(e)(1)(iii)(A)–1 to clarify the statement identifying a difference between the loan amount in the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, pursuant to § 1026.38(e)(1)(iii)(A). The Bureau is proposing to amend comment 38(e)(1)(iii)(A)–1 to replace “You increased this amount” with “This amount increased.”
The Bureau is proposing to add commentary to § 1026.38(e)(2) to harmonize the disclosure of increases or decreases in closing costs between the “Alternative Calculating Cash to Close” table, which may be used for transactions without a seller, and the general “Calculating Cash to Close” table. Section 1026.38(i) and comment 38(i)–4, which prescribe content for the general “Calculating Cash to Close” table, require statements regarding any excess amount and any credit to the consumer be disclosed on the table. However, a parallel comment was not adopoted or incorporated by reference in § 1026.38(e) for the alternative table. The Bureau intended that the same requirement apply to the alternative table and is proposing to add comment to section 38(e)(2)(iii)(A) to reflect the intended meaning of § 1026.38(e)(2)(iii)(A) and harmonize the commentary with section 38(i)(1)–3, which interprets § 1026.38(i)(1).
The Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.38(e)(3)(iii)(A), which applies to the “Alternative Calculating Cash to Close” table, to harmonize it with the parallel provision in § 1026.38(i)(2)(iii)(A), which applies to the general “Calculating Cash to Close” table. The Bureau intended that that these two provisions require, among other things, a statement that the consumer “paid such amounts prior to consummation of the transaction,” as reflected in § 1026.38(i)(2)(iii)(A). However, § 1026.38(e)(3)(iii)(A), as adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule contains different language. Accordingly, the Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.38(e)(3)(iii)(A) to harmonize these two provisions.
In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts.
This rule proposes two main amendments to provisions adopted by the TILA–RESPA Final Rule. First, the Bureau is proposing to amend § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) and related commentary to relax a timing requirement that currently requires creditors to redisclose the interest rate and interest rate dependent charges to the consumer on the date that the rate is locked. The proposed amendment would require creditors to redisclose the interest rate and interest rate dependent charges no later than the next business day after the rate is locked.
The Bureau believes that, absent the proposed change, this requirement is likely to result in at least some creditors limiting consumers' ability to lock their interest rates only to times early in a business day due to the implementation costs of getting the disclosure to the consumer the same date if the consumer requested a rate lock sufficiently late during the business day or after hours. The Bureau believes that consumers are unlikely to choose creditors based on the creditors' policies regarding interest rate locks. Moreover, consumers would be unlikely to know whether their creditors will in fact allow interest rate locks at all times until the consumer actually attempts to lock the interest rate. Consequently, consumers could experience inconvenience because creditors limit when they may lock their interest rates. Furthermore, because consumers are unlikely to know of this practice until they attempt to lock a floating interest rate, it is unlikely that this practice would be corrected or influenced by market competition.
The second proposed amendment would permit creditors to state on the Loan Estimate that the creditor may
The Bureau believes that both proposed amendments would provide options that a creditor is free to undertake or not to undertake, and thus present no cost to creditors. The Bureau believes that both proposed amendments would present some benefits to creditors. The Bureau believes that the first proposed amendment could present both benefits and costs to consumers, while the second proposed amendment presents benefits to consumers.
The proposed amendment would provide an option to creditors: Creditors may avail themselves of an extra business day to redisclose interest rate and interest rate dependent charges, but do not have to. They also may continue to provide revised disclosures on the same date that the rate is locked if they choose. Therefore, some creditors will benefit if the proposed amendment is adopted by not having to redisclose on the same date the rate is locked, while other creditors could continue to redisclose on the date the rate is locked if they choose and are as well off as they would have been without this proposed amendment. Overall, if the proposed amendment is adopted, some creditors will benefit, others may not, all creditors will enjoy increased flexibility, but no creditors will face increased costs.
Under the current rule, the Bureau believes that some creditors could continue offering flexible time periods for interest rate locks, but others, for example, might choose to limit when consumers may lock interest rates in order to ease the compliance cost. Other creditors might continue to allow consumers to request a lock at any time but only lock the rate contractually the business day after the consumer requests a rate lock, instead of on the date the consumer requests the rate lock. Consumers of these creditors could benefit from the proposed amendment through the increased convenience of being able to lock in the interest rate at any time during the day.
Consumers of creditors that continue to allow flexibility in locking interest rates might experience a cost: Their revised disclosures might not be available until the next business day if the proposed amendment is adopted. However, some of these creditors might still provide revised disclosures on the same date that the interest rate is locked. If they do not provide the revised disclosure until the next business day, then the potential consumer harm is the time difference between when the consumers would receive revised disclosures.
The Bureau does not possess any data, and is not aware of a source to obtain data, that would enable it to report the quantitative effects of this provision, for example, the number of creditors that would not let their consumers lock the interest rate in the afternoon or in the evening if the provision is not adopted. The Bureau seeks comment on this issue.
The Bureau believes that, without the proposed amendment, creditors that ordinarily originate construction loans could be forced either to originate only those construction loans for which the creditor is certain that no redisclosure prior to settlement will be necessary or to price in the risk of having to cure any amounts charged over the estimates initially provided more than 60 days before settlement. Creditors that price in the risk, including the estimated cost of cure in their pricing, risk miscalibrating the pricing and losing consumers to less risk-averse competitors or facing unanticipated costs related to cure for the failure to redisclose more accurate costs. In all events, creditors risk losing consumers to other options. In all events, the proposed amendment presents benefits to the creditors that decide to originate construction loans and presents no costs.
As noted above, under the current rule, a consumer who needs a new construction loan may only be able to obtain a construction loan where the creditor has priced in the risk of having to cure any amounts charged over the estimates initially provided over 60 days before settlement, and that is a cost to consumers. On the other hand, if the proposed amendment is not adopted, yet the consumer manages to receive a construction loan, then the Loan Estimate provides consumers more certainty, given that creditors would be limited in their ability to redisclose estimated costs and reset the applicable tolerances. In situations where creditors misgauged estimates provided in the initial Loan Estimate, consumers might be entitled to receive a cure of any differences between the initial disclosure and the final costs at closing, to the extent such differences exceed applicable tolerances. However, the Bureau believes that these benefits to consumers are marginal, given that costs associated with construction loans are inherently volatile beyond the creditor's control. As a result, the Bureau believes that creditors unable to redisclose estimates given more than 60 days prior to consummation would be less likely to originate such loans.
The Bureau does not possess any data, and is not aware of a source to obtain data, that would enable it to report the number of transactions affected or to quantify the extent of creditor and consumer benefits. The Bureau seeks comment on this issue.
The Bureau believes that covered persons with no more than $10 billion in assets will not be differentially affected by the proposed amendment regarding construction loans.
The proposed amendment regarding interest rate locks might have two particular effects on covered persons with no more than $10 billion in assets. First, covered persons with no more than $10 billion in assets are more likely to benefit from this proposed provision to the extent that redisclosure on the same business day of an interest rate lock that occurred close to the end of the business day might require software and business processes upgrade costs. Larger covered persons are more likely to originate a sufficient number of transactions to make it worth implementing these changes, as opposed to choosing to offer interest rate locks only at set times during business hours.
Secondly, creditors located in more than one time zone might have to offer a shorter preset adjustment time to some customers (for example, if the location of the rate lock operation is in the Eastern Time zone), but covered persons with no more than $10 billion in assets
The Bureau does not believe that there will be an adverse impact on access to credit resulting from any of the two provisions. Moreover, it is possible that there will be an expansion of access to credit, if the proposed amendment regarding construction loans facilitates the making of new construction loans, as the Bureau anticipates.
The Bureau believes that rural areas might benefit from these two proposed provisions more than urban areas. Competition might drive creditors to originate construction loans despite the possible redisclosure issues and to provide interest rate locks throughout the day despite the same business day redisclosure requirement. To the extent that there are fewer creditors operating in rural areas than in urban areas with correspondingly reduced competition, and to the extent that competition would actually matter for these two issues, rural areas are most likely to suffer the potential harms the proposed amendments seek to address. Therefore, rural areas may conversely see the largest benefit from the proposed amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (the RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small nonprofit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.
The 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, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.
An IRFA is not required for this proposal because the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on any small entities. The Bureau does not expect the proposal to impose costs on covered persons. All methods of compliance under current law will remain available to small entities if the proposal is adopted. Thus, a small entity that is in compliance with current law need not take any additional action if the proposal is adopted.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau has determined that this Proposed Rule would not impose any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA. The Bureau welcomes comments on this determination or any other aspect of this proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted as outlined in the
Condominiums, Consumer protection, Housing, Mortgage servicing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Recordkeeping and recordkeeping requirements, Reporting, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau proposes to amend Regulation X, 12 CFR part 1024, and Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2603–2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 5512, 5532, 5581.
(d)
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603–2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) * * *
(D)
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The disclosures required by § 1026.19 (e) and (f);
(m) * * *
(8)
(o) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The dollar amounts required to be disclosed by paragraphs (b)(6) and (7), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(ii) and (iii), (c)(4)(ii), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (l) of this section shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar, except that the per diem amount required to be disclosed by paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section and the monthly amounts required to be disclosed by paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) and (g)(3)(v) of this section shall not be rounded.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) If the amount disclosed under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is different than the amount disclosed under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section (unless the difference is due to rounding), a statement of that fact, along with a statement that the consumer paid such amounts prior to consummation of the transaction; or
(4) * * *
(ii) Under the subheading “Final,” the total amount of payoffs and payments made to third parties disclosed pursuant to paragraph (t)(5)(vii)(B) of this section, to the extent known, disclosed as a negative number;
(k) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The amount of any loan secured by a first lien on the property that will be paid off as part of the real estate closing, labeled “Payoff of First Mortgage Loan”;
(vi) The amount of any loan secured by a second lien on the property that will be paid off as part of the real estate closing, labeled “Payoff of Second Mortgage Loan”;
The revisions and additions read as follows:
1.
i. Assume a creditor sets the interest rate by executing a rate lock agreement with the consumer. If such an agreement exists when the original disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) are provided, then the actual points and lender credits are compared to the estimated points disclosed pursuant to § 1026.37(f)(1) and lender credits included in the original disclosures provided under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) for the purpose of determining good faith pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(3)(i). If the consumer enters into a rate lock agreement with the creditor after the disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) were provided, then § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D) requires the creditor to provide, no later than the next business day after the date that the consumer and the creditor enter into a rate lock agreement, a revised version of the disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) reflecting the revised interest rate, the points disclosed pursuant to § 1026.37(f)(1), lender credits, and any other
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking found in the engine exhaust pipe. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 15, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam Airworthiness Office, Via Maiorise–81043 Capua (CE) Italy; telephone: +39 0823 997538; fax: +39 0823 622899; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4119; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2014–0220, dated September 30, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl Model P2006T airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a pre-flight inspection of a P2006T aeroplane, which included the opening of engine nacelle, a crack was found on the engine exhaust pipe Part Number (P/N) 26–7–1800–1.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to engine damage, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB 170–CS–Ed 1 Rev1.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the affected engine exhaust pipes and, depending on findings, replacement.
Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 170–CS–ED 1, Rev 1, dated September 25, 2014. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $425, or $42.50 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about .5 work-hour and require parts costing $343, for a cost of $385.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 15, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl P2006T airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking found in the engine exhaust pipe. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct cracked engine exhaust pipes, which could lead to engine damage, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of all engine exhaust pipes following the inspection instructions in Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 170–CS–ED 1, Rev 1, dated September 25, 2014.
(2) If any deformation, cracks, or any other defects are detected during the inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected pipe with an airworthy part or contact Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM for FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for compliance with this AD and incorporate those instructions.
(3) Within 30 days after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report the results (including no findings) by using the occurrence report in Costruzioni Aeronautiche TECNAM Service Bulletin No. SB 170–CS–ED 1, Rev 1, dated September 25, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2014–0220, dated September 30, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to remove naloxegol ((5α,6 α)-17-allyl-6-((20-hydroxy-3,6,9,12,15,18-hexaoxaicos-1-yl)oxy)-4,5-epoxymorphinon-3,14-diol) and its salts from the schedules of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This scheduling action is pursuant to the CSA which requires that such actions be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing through formal rulemaking. Naloxegol is currently a schedule II controlled substance because it can be derived from opium alkaloids. This action would remove the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to controlled substances, including those specific to schedule II controlled substances, on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, dispense, conduct research, import, export, or conduct chemical analysis) or propose to handle naloxegol.
Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before November 28, 2014. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811)”, may file a request for hearing or waiver of participation pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45, 1316.47, 1316.48, or 1316.49, as applicable. Requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before November 28, 2014.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA–400” on all correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the DEA for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551–559). 21 CFR 1308.41–1308.45, and 21 CFR part 1316 subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44 (a)–(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44 (a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of the interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and 1316.49, including a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.
Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing is restricted to “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information above, on or before the date specified above.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801–971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, but they are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purposes of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1300 to 1321. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c) and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308. 21 U.S.C. 812(a).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(2), the Attorney General may, by rule, “remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100, who in turn has redelegated that authority to the Deputy Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Naloxegol, or PEG-naloxol, is a new molecular entity and is a polyethylene glycolyated (PEGylated) derivative of naloxone. Its chemical names are (5α,6 α)-17-allyl-6-((20-hydroxy-3,6,9,12,15,18-hexaoxaicos-1-yl)oxy)-4,5-epoxymorphinon-3,14-diol or alpha-6mPEG7–O-naloxol. Naloxegol is an antagonist predominantly of peripheral mu opioid receptors. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved naloxegol for marketing on September 16, 2014, under the brand name Movantik
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), proceedings to issue, amend, or repeal scheduling actions may be initiated on the petition of any interested party. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43, the DEA received a petition from the drug sponsor dated March 22, 2012, requesting that the DEA amend 21 CFR 1308.12(b)(1) to exclude naloxegol as a schedule II controlled substance. The petitioner stated that naloxegol is a mu opioid receptor antagonist without mu opioid agonist or partial agonist properties. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(c), the DEA accepted the petition for filing on October 1, 2012.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), the DEA gathered the necessary data on naloxegol and on February 7, 2013, forwarded to the HHS the data with the sponsor's petition along with a request for a scientific and medical evaluation and the HHS's recommendation as to whether or not naloxegol should be removed from the list of controlled substances. According to the HHS, the sponsor submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) for naloxegol on September 16, 2013. Based on the NDA, the HHS summarized that naloxegol is an antagonist of peripheral opioid receptors for the treatment of OIC.
On August 8, 2014, the HHS provided to the DEA a scientific and medical evaluation document prepared by the FDA entitled “Basis for the Recommendation to Decontrol Naloxegol and its Salts from Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.” Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), this document contained an eight-factor analysis of naloxegol as a new drug, along with the HHS's recommendation to remove naloxegol from the schedules of the CSA.
In response, the DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by the HHS, and all other relevant data, and completed its own eight-factor review document on naloxegol pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and DEA, and as considered by the DEA in this proposal to remove naloxegol from the schedules of the CSA. Please note that both the DEA and HHS analyses are available in their entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this rule at
Naloxegol is a new molecular entity that has not been marketed in the United States or in any other country. As such, there is no information available regarding actual abuse of naloxegol. However, scientific studies show that naloxegol does not demonstrate a potential for abuse.
Naloxegol is a conjugation of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to naloxone. Naloxegol binds to mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors and acts as an antagonist at these receptors. PEGylation of naloxone decreases the capacity of the substance to cross the blood-brain barrier, limiting the availability of naloxegol to peripheral opioid receptors (Diego et al., 2011; HHS review). Due to naloxegol being an antagonist at the three opioid receptors, mu, delta, and kappa, the HHS asserts that naloxegol does not have opioid agonist properties. Further, in abuse liability studies in animals, naloxegol did not produce responses seen with morphine administration. In clinical studies, the reports show that naloxegol does not produce euphoria or abuse potential related AEs. For example, the HHS stated that “[n]aloxegol (30 to 1,000 mg/kg) produced less than 20% morphine-appropriate responding at any dose, which meets criteria for a `no-drug' interoceptive cue.”
Binding studies showed that naloxegol does not bind significantly (>50% inhibition) to other molecular central nervous system (CNS) receptors, including dopamine, serotonin, glutamate, α-aminobutyric acid (GABA), sigma, acetylcholine, norepinephrine, cannabinoid, histamine, and monoamine transporters. Toxicological studies in rats and dogs did not produce behavioral signs of abuse potential, e.g. increased or decreased motor behavior, decreased body weight, or food intake. In two analgesia models in rodents, naloxegol did not produce any analgesic effects, demonstrating the lack of mu opioid receptor activation. Naloxegol was also tested in both analgesia models for its potency in reversing morphine-induced (subcutaneous or intravenous, 1–32 mg/kg) analgesia. Naloxegol did not fully reverse the analgesia produced by morphine, demonstrating that antagonistic actions of naloxegol were predominantly at the peripheral opioid receptor and not at the opioid receptors in the CNS. According to the HHS, oral naloxegol (12.5 and 25 mg/day) did precipitate opioid withdrawal in patients receiving opioids for pain management in the Phase 2/3 clinical trials. The incidence of withdrawal was low, the symptoms of opioid withdrawals occurred in patients taking naloxegol (2%) compared to placebo (<1%). It occurred with a higher incidence in patients receiving naloxegol (3%) at the higher dose (25 mg/day) than those receiving the 12.5 mg/day dose (1%). The HHS asserts that the withdrawal symptoms reported did not always meet the criteria of a clinically meaningful opioid withdrawal syndrome.
Naloxegol is known as (5α,6α)-17-allyl-6-((20-hydroxy-3,6,9,12,15,18-hexaoxaicos-1-yl)oxy)-4,5-epoxymorphinon-3,14-diol and also as alpha-6mPEG7–O-naloxol. The CAS number is 854601–70–0. The molecular formula of naloxegol is C34H53NO11 and the molecular weight is 651.8 g/mol. It is a white to off-white powder and is soluble in aqueous solvents over a pH range of 1 to 7.5. Naloxegol is synthesized in a five-step process from naloxone hydrochloride, an opioid antagonist derived from thebaine. Naloxegol (25 mg/day) is rapidly absorbed following oral administration in healthy volunteers. Maximum plasma concentrations were reached in 1.5 to 2 hours. The plasma half-life (t
According to HHS, there has been no evidence of abuse-related signals from the human clinical trials. Naloxegol is a mu opioid antagonist, which as a class does not have abuse potential.
There have been no reports of abuse of naloxegol. According to the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)
According to the HHS, naloxegol is well-tolerated and safe at the therapeutic doses of 12.5 mg and 25 mg. Preclinical and clinical studies showed no evidence of potential for abuse of naloxegol and thus there is little public health risk from naloxegol.
There were no symptoms of physical dependence in a naloxegol physical dependence liability study in rats. The HHS also mentioned that the lack of naloxegol self-administration by animals is consistent with a lack of psychic dependence liability.
Naloxegol is not considered an immediate precursor of any controlled substance.
Based on consideration of the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying recommendation of the HHS, and based on the DEA's consideration of its own eight-factor analysis, the DEA finds that these facts and all relevant data demonstrate that naloxegol does not possess abuse or dependence potential. Accordingly, the DEA finds that naloxegol does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule, and should be removed from control under the CSA.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. This rule does not 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.
The Deputy Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA), has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of this rule is to remove naloxegol from the list of schedules of the CSA. This action will remove regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to controlled substances for handlers and proposed handlers of naloxegol. Accordingly, it has the potential for some economic impact in the form of cost savings.
Naloxegol is a new molecular entity and is not currently available or marketed in any country. According to publicly available information reviewed by the DEA, naloxegol is anticipated to enjoy patent protection for an extended period of time before generic equivalents may be manufactured and marketed in the United States. Although the number of manufacturers of naloxegol may initially be limited, there is potential for numerous handlers in various business activities, e.g., distributors, hospitals/clinics, pharmacies, practitioners, etc.
If finalized, the proposed rule will affect all persons who would handle, or propose to handle, naloxegol. Due to the wide variety of unidentifiable and unquantifiable variables that potentially could influence the distribution and dispensing rates of new molecular entities, the DEA is unable to determine the number of entities and small entities which might handle naloxegol. However, the DEA estimates that all persons who would handle, or propose to handle naloxegol, are currently registered with the DEA to handle schedule II controlled substances. Therefore, the 1.5 million (1,469,418 as of September 2014) controlled substance registrations, representing approximately 426,714 entities, would be the maximum number of entities affected by this rule. The DEA estimates that 417,302 (97.8%) of 426,714 affected entities are “small entities” in accordance with the RFA and Small Business Administration size standards.
The DEA estimates all controlled substances registrants handle both controlled and non-controlled substances and these registrants are expected to continue to handle naloxegol if the proposed rule were finalized. Additionally, since prospective naloxegol handlers are likely to handle other schedule II controlled substances, the cost savings they would receive as a result of the de-control of naloxegol would be nominal. As naloxegol handlers continue to handle other scheduled II controlled substances, they will need to maintain their DEA registration and keep the same security and recordkeeping processes, equipment, and facilities in place and would experience only a nominal reduction in security, inventory, recordkeeping, and labeling costs.
While the DEA does not have a basis to estimate the number of affected entities, the DEA estimates that the maximum number of affected entities is 426,714 of which 417,302 are estimated to be small entities. Since the affected entities are expected to handle other schedule II controlled substances and maintain security and recordkeeping facilities and processes consistent with schedule II controlled substances handling requirements, the DEA estimates any economic impact (cost savings) will be nominal. Because of these facts, this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, the DEA has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is proposed to be amended to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate excluding apomorphine, thebaine-derived butorphanol, dextrorphan, nalbuphine, nalmefene, naloxegol, naloxone, and naltrexone, and their respective salts, but including the following:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by California for the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD or “the District”) portion of the California SIP. The submitted SIP revision contains the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We are proposing to approve the submitted SIP revision under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by November 28, 2014.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0696, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4122,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the document addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.
On September 18 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
While there is no previous version of VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP, we approved VCAPCD's 2006 RACT SIP analysis on April 21, 2009 (
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Section III.D. of the preamble to EPA's proposed rule to implement the 2008 NAAQS (78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013) states in part that “RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by a specific CTG source category.” The preamble further states that “States must also submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submission as described in the Phase 2 Rule.
Rules and guidance documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT SIPs include the following:
1. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2” (70 FR71612; November 29, 2005).
2. “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements”—Proposed Rule (78 FR 34178; June 6, 2013).
3. “State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies, August 21, 2001, U.S. EPA Region IX (the “Little Bluebook”).
6. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (“the NO
7. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers.”
8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
9. EPA's CTGs
VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP provides the District's demonstration and certification that the applicable SIP for the Ventura County APCD satisfies CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The District's submittal builds on its 2006 and 2009 RACT SIP certifications that its rules meet RACT. However, since, as the District points out, many CTGs have not been updated for many years, VCAPCD compared its rules to similar rules in other air districts with a higher ozone nonattainment classification. VCAPCD also reviewed the cost effectiveness of more stringent requirements adopted in other air districts.
Where there are no existing sources covered by a particular CTG document, states may, in lieu of adopting RACT requirements for those sources, adopt negative declarations certifying that there are no such sources in the relevant nonattainment area. Table B–2 of VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP lists not only CTGs, but also other documents relevant to establishing RACT at major sources. Negative declarations are only required for CTG source categories for which the District has no sources covered by the CTG. A negative declaration is not required for non-CTG source categories. Table 2 below lists the CTG source categories that remain after we excluded non-CTG documents from VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP Table B–2.
VCAPCD provided its 2014 RACT SIP for public comment prior to the public hearing for adoption. No written comments were received by the District.
We are proposing to find that VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP submission, including the above negative declarations, adequately demonstrate that its rules satisfy RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our TSD has more information on our evaluation.
We recommend VCAPCD investigate Rule 70, Storage and Transfer of Gasoline, for potential future emission reductions the next time the District opens the rule for amendment. We discuss this recommendation further in our TSD.
Based on the evaluations discussed above and more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to conclude that VCAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP satisfies CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to fully approve this submission into the California SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this RACT submission into the federally enforceable SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The General Services Administration (GSA) issued a proposed rule on September 10, 2014, amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to clarify and update the contracting by negotiation GSAR section and incorporate existing Federal Supply Schedule Contracting policies and procedures, and corresponding provisions and clauses. The comment period is being extended to provide additional time for interested parties to provide comments for GSAR Case 2013–G502, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting (Administrative Changes), to November 21, 2014.
For the proposed rule published on September 10, 2014 (79 FR 54126), submit comments by November 21, 2014.
Submit comments in response to GSAR Case 2013–G502 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: U.S. General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 20405–0001.
Ms. Dana Munson, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202–357–9652 or email
GSA published a proposed rule in the
Government procurement.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 28, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–20), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intent to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection in support of the shell egg surveillance portion of the Regulations Governing the Inspection of Eggs (Egg Products Inspection Act)—7 CFR part 57.
Comments on this notice must be received by December 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection notice. Comments should be submitted online at
Michelle Degenhart at the above physical address, or by email at
The EPIA authorizes the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue regulations to ensure that only eggs fit for human consumption are used for such purposes.
Under the shell egg surveillance program, shell egg handlers and hatcheries are required to register with USDA. Quarterly, a State or Federal surveillance inspector visits each registered handler to verify that shell eggs packed for consumer use are in compliance, that restricted eggs are being disposed of properly, and that adequate records are being maintained.
The information and recordkeeping requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of Congress, to administer the mandatory inspection program, and to take regulatory action, in accordance with the regulations and the EPIA. The forms within this collection package require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the regulations, and their use is
The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of the AMS, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program's Quality Assessment Division and resident Federal-State graders, which includes State agencies authorized to conduct inspections on AMS' behalf. The information is only used to verify compliance with the EPIA and the regulations and to facilitate regulatory action. The Agency is the primary user of the information; secondary users include each authorized State agency that have a cooperative agreement with AMS.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Plant Variety Protection Board (Board). The meeting is being held to discuss a variety of topics including, but not limited to, work and outreach plans, subcommittee activities, and proposals for procedure changes. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.
Monday, December 8, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday, December 9, 2014, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Board meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago Hotel at the Water Tower Room, at 151 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.
Maria Pratt, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), AMS, Science and Technology Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 260–8983; Fax: (202) 260–8976, or Email:
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a) of the FACA (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), this notice informs the public that the Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) is having a Board meeting earlier than the 15 day requirement of the FACA. The Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.) provides legal protection in the form of intellectual property rights to developers of new varieties of plants, which are reproduced sexually by seed or are tuber-propagated. A certificate of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) is awarded to an owner of a crop variety after an examination shows that it is new, distinct from other varieties, genetically uniform and stable through successive generations. The term of protection is 20 years for most crops and 25 years for trees, shrubs, and vines. The PVPA also provides for a statutory Board (7 U.S.C. 2327). The PVPA Board is composed of 14 individuals who are experts in various areas of development and represent the seed industry sector, academia and government. The duties of the Board are to: (1) Advise the Secretary concerning the adoption of rules and regulations to facilitate the proper administration of the FACA; (2) provide advisory counsel to the Secretary on appeals concerning decisions on applications by the PVPO and on requests for emergency public-interest compulsory licenses; and (3) advise the Secretary on any other matters under the Regulations and Rules of Practice and on all questions under Section 44 of the FACA, “Public Interest in Wide Usage” (7 U.S.C. 2404).
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the PVPO 2014 achievements, 2015 work plan and outreach plan, ongoing process improvements, updates on electronic applications/database conversion, plans for PVP recognition by other countries, the activities of the subcommittee to evaluate molecular techniques for PVP distinctness characterization and proposals for procedure changes.
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 this proposed information collection. This is a new collection to conduct various procedures to test questionnaires and survey procedures to improve the quality and usability of information collection instruments.
Written comments must be received on or before December 29, 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 of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: Lynnette Thomas, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go 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 Lynnette Thomas at 703–305–2017.
The data-gathering activities utilized to this effect include but are not limited to experiments with levels of incentives for study participants, tests of various types of survey operations, focus groups, cognitive laboratory activities, pilot testing, exploratory interviews, experiments with questionnaire design, and usability testing of electronic data collection instruments. FNS envisions using a variety of techniques including field tests, respondent debriefing questionnaires, cognitive interviews, and focus groups in order to identify questionnaire and procedural problems, suggest solutions, and measure the relative effectiveness of alternative solutions.
Following standard OMB requirements, FNS will submit a change request to OMB for each data collection activity undertaken under this generic clearance. FNS will provide OMB with the instruments and supporting materials describing the research project and specific pre-testing activities.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) intends to request an extension for a currently approved information collection procedure for Sugar Import Licensing Programs described in 7 CFR part 1530.
Comments should be received on or before December 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Mail or deliver comments to William Janis, International Economist, Import Policies and Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1021,
William Janis at the address stated above or telephone at (202) 720–2194, or by email at:
In addition, each participant must maintain records on all program reports as set forth in section 1530.110. The information collected is used by the licensing authority to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for program activities. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper operations of these programs.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690–1578.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) intends to request an extension for a currently approved information collection procedure for entry of specialty sugars into the United States as described in 7 CFR part 2011.
Comments should be received on or before December 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Mail or deliver comments to William Janis, International Economist, Import Policies and Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1021, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–1021.
William Janis at the address stated above, or telephone at (202) 720–2194; or by email at
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Connie Ehrhart, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 690–1578.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Helena National Forest is going to prepare an environmental impact statement for vegetation management actions in the Tenmile Municipal Watershed and the South Hills of the City of Helena east of the Continental Divide. The purpose of the project is to address the need to modify forest fuels accumulation in order to reduce the potential for high-severity wildfire effects within the City of Helena's Municipal Watershed, wildland urban interface, and surrounding area as well as provide for firefighter and public safety. Treatment activities are proposed on both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Lands (BLM).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 28, 2014. The draft environmental impact statement is expected April 2015 and the final environmental impact statement is expected May 2016.
Send written comments to William Avey Helena and Lewis & Clark National Forests Supervisor, Helena National Forest, 2880 Skyway Dr., Helena, MT 59602. Comments may also be sent via email to
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
Allen Byrd Team Leader, at 406–449–5201. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the project is to maintain consistent quantity and quality of water within the municipal watershed and improve conditions for public and firefighters safety across the landscape in the event of a wildfire. In order to achieve this purpose, there is a need to create a mosaic of vegetation and fuel structure more resilient to disturbance which will provide for safer, more effective fire suppression actions. Reducing intensity of wildfires and increase fire suppression effectiveness would improve protection measures for the surrounding communities and key municipal watershed infrastructure. These actions would reduce the probability of post-wildfire watershed impacts in the Tenmile municipal watershed. In addition, sources of anthropogenic sediment to streams need to be addressed in order improve water quality, watershed function, and other resource values in the project area.
Approximately 24,946 acres are proposed for treatment (24, 020 acres on Forest Service lands and 926 acres on BLM lands) which include a combination of commercial harvest of trees, non-commercial vegetation treatments, and prescribed fire. Mechanical and/or hand treatment methods would be used to accomplish treatment objectives. Proposed treatment activities include: Roughly 4,002 acres of Improvement Harvest; 11,194 acres of Low Severity Prescribed Fire; 2,420 acres of Mixed Severity Prescribed Fire; 470 acres of Precommercial Thinning; 2,231 acres of Private Land Buffers; and 4,629 acres of Regeneration Harvest. Up to 40-miles of new temporary and/or short-term specified road construction and approximately 80 miles of reconstruction of existing system road would be necessary to implement the proposed action. Temporary roads will be obliterated (restored to natural contours) upon completion of fuels removal operations. Site-specific amendments to the Helena National Forest (HNF) Plan standards pertaining to elk hiding cover, elk winter range, and elk thermal cover may be necessary in order to meet the project's purpose and need. Approximately 35 percent (8,803 acres) of the project area is located within the Jericho Mountain and Lazyman Gulch Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The Jericho Mountain IRA is 8,749 acres. Of this, 78 percent or 6,902 acres are within the project area boundary. Treatment activities are proposed on 45 percent or 3,958 acres within the Jericho Mountain IRA. The Lazyman Gulch IRA is 11,848 acres and is entirely within the project area boundary. Treatment activities are proposed on 40 percent or 4,845 acres of the Lazyman Gulch IRA. Proposed treatment activities in IRAs would include a combination of commercial harvest of trees, non-commercial vegetation treatments, and prescribed fire. Mechanical and/or hand treatments methods would be utilized to accomplish treatment objectives within both IRAs. Commercial transport of timber is proposed on Forest Service System roads 1863 and 1863–E1 which are located within the Jericho Mountain IRA. The current maintenance level of these roads is capable of supporting commercial activities and no re-construction of road features is necessary. Also, use of Forest Service system road 1864, located in the Jericho Mountain IRA, is proposed for the purpose of providing machine access into proposed treatment units. No commercial haul of timber is proposed on road 1864. No road construction of system or temporary roads is proposed within either IRA. The legal location of this project is: Township 10N RO6W
Helena and Lewis & Clark National Forests Forest Supervisor (Lead Agency) Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Manager
The decisions to be made include: Whether to implement the proposed action or an alternative to the proposed action, what monitoring requirements would be appropriate to evaluate the implementation of this project, and whether a forest plan amendment would be necessary as a result of the decision for this project.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In November 2014, a scoping notice (flyer) will be mailed to interested and affected parties directing them to the project's information which will be posted to the Helena National Forest's Web page (
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in the administrative objection process or any judicial review.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tongass Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in Sitka, Alaska. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The most up-to-date information concerning the Committee, including meeting times and agendas can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on:
• November 19, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (AKDT).
• November 20, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (AKDT).
• November 21, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (AKDT).
All meetings are subject to change and cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please visit the Web site listed in the
The meeting will be held at the Sheet'ka Kwaán Naa Kahídi, The Community House, 200 Katlian Street, Sitka, Alaska 99835. For more information on the meeting or to attend please visit the Web site listed in the
Nicole McMurren, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 907–772–5875, or by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice and recommendations on ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest management strategy on the Tongass National Forest with an emphasis on young growth management. Recommendations and advice may directly inform the development of a proposed action for modification of the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 3 p.m. EDT.
Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.
Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session to further discuss and consider the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. According to Office of
Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203–4545.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that changed circumstances exist which affected the ability of Global Nuclear Fuel—Americas, LLC (GNF–A) to manage its inventory and comply with the 18-month re-export requirement provided for in the exclusion from the scope of the order. Specifically, the Department finds that certain past entries by GNF–A of low enriched uranium (LEU) from France satisfy the conditions for exclusion from the order, and that GNF–A will be allowed to make certain future entries of LEU under the provision for exclusion from the scope of the order.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4261.
On October 2, 2014, the Department published the Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review of Low Enriched Uranium from France.
The product covered by the order is all low-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF
Certain merchandise is outside the scope of the order. Specifically, the order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U
Also excluded from the order is low-enriched uranium owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this proceeding is dispositive.
Because there were no comments on the preliminary results, the Department adopts the reasoning and findings of fact in the preliminary results as the final results of the review. The Department's full analysis of the details of GNF–A's request for CCR and the information provided by GNF–A in its questionnaire response requires a discussion of business proprietary information, which can be found in the proprietary Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review: Analysis of GNF–A Business Proprietary Information.”
The Department will issue revised certifications and instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding GNF–A's compliance with the 18-month re-export requirement.
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
On June 25, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review on stainless steel plate in coils (steel plate) from Belgium.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we determine that ASB made sales at less than normal value. For the final weighted-average dumping margin,
Jolanta Lawska at 202–482–8362; AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 25, 2014, the Department published in the
We invited interested parties to comment on the
No party requested a hearing.
The product covered by the
All issues raised in the case briefs by the parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For reasons described above, we did not accept ASB's rebuttal brief. Petitioners did not submit a rebuttal brief.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for ASB, which we discuss in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and Final Calculation Memorandum.
As a result of our review, we determined that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Since the weighted-average dumping margin is above
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following antidumping duty deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel plate from Belgium entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For ASB, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.54 percent
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(a)(5).
These final results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before November 18, 2014. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 14–012. Applicant: University of California Los Angeles, 570 Westwood Plaza, Building 114, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Instrument: iCorr (Correlative Microscopy). Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to perform correlative microscopy of biological samples from micro to nanometer scales, using fluorescence light microscopy and cryo electron microscopy, used in conjunction to reveal dynamics and functionalities of the materials. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 3, 2014.
Docket Number: 14–026. Applicant: Stanford University, 1291 Welch Rd. CCSR 2100, Pediatrics-Human Gene Therapy, Stanford, CA 94305. Instrument: iMIC Digital Microscope 2.0 system full set (0000–530–25032). Manufacturer: FEI Munich (formerly TILL Photonics), Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to perform high-speed imaging and simultaneous large volume data processing of cultured neurons from rats and mice growing in special made PDMS microfluidic chambers. A fluorescent microscopy system which is able to scan and acquire large amounts of images at high speeds is required, as well as the system being able to maintain stable focus plane over a long time-lapse recording. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 3, 2014.
Docket Number: 14–027. Applicant: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 4000 Jones Bridge Rd., Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Instrument: JEM–1400 Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to research and discover the genetic pathways of various neurological diseases, using tissue samples from animal models which are examined for changes in their subcellular organelles that are believed to result from the effects of the diseases. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 14, 2014.
Docket Number: 14–028. Applicant: University of Colorado Boulder, UCB 428, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309. Instrument: Fiberoptic Cable. Manufacturer: Ceramoptec Gmbh, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to pursue a research path towards constructing an off grid toilet that converts human waste into fertilizer or solid fuel, using solar energy transmitted by fiberoptic cable to a reaction chamber. A fiberoptic cable that is able to withstand high temperatures (300–700 degrees C) without a high transmission loss is required. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category that fulfill these requirements manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 14, 2014.
Docket Number: 14–029. Applicant: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 4000 Jones Bridge Rd., Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Instrument: KonTEM PhazR System. Manufacturer: KonTEM GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be attached to an electron microscope, in place of one of the apertures. It will be inserted into the electron beam path to enhance image contrast for the imaging of proteins such as ion channels. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 14, 2014.
Department of Defense.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.
A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, November 14, 2014. The Public Session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m.
The Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, 875 N. Randolph Street, Suite 150, Arlington, VA 22203. Email:
This public 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.
• 8:00 a.m.–8:30 a.m., Administrative Session (41 CFR 102–3.160, not subject to notice & open meeting requirements).
• 8:30 a.m.–9:30 a.m., Informational Brief—Victim Counsel and Victim Access to Information.
• 9:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m., Service Perspectives on Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) Programs.
• 11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m., Perspectives from Special Victims' Counsel.
• 12:15 p.m.–1:00 p.m., Lunch.
• 1:00 p.m.–1:30 p.m., Trip Report: August 18–22, 2014 SVC Training, TJAGLCS, Charlottesville, VA.
• 1:30 p.m.–2:15 p.m., Military Criminal Investigation Organization Perspectives on SVC Programs.
• 2:15 p.m.–3:30 p.m., Defense Counsel Perspectives on SVC Programs.
• 3:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m., Trial Counsel Perspectives on SVC Programs.
• 4:45 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public Comment.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 8,852,950: HELICOPTER WEAPON MOUNTING SYSTEM//Patent No. 8,855,961: BINARY DEFINITION FILES.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522–5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522–5001, telephone 812–854–4100.
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 28, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Tracy Rimdzius, 202–208–7154.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces tests, test forms, and delivery formats that the Secretary determines to be suitable for use in the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS). The Secretary also clarifies that, to provide for the transition from the performance accountability system for Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to the performance accountability system for AEFLA as reauthorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), this announcement will remain effective until June 30, 2016.
Michelle Meier, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11162, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–7240. Telephone: (202) 245–7890 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
On January 14, 2008, we published in the
On April 16, 2008, we published in the
On February 2, 2010, we published in the
The Secretary determined tests and test forms to be suitable for a period of either seven or three years from the date of the February 2010 notice. A seven-year approval required no additional action on the part of the publisher, unless the information the publisher submitted as a basis for the Secretary's review was inaccurate or unless the test is substantially revised. A three-year approval was issued with a set of conditions to be met by the completion of the three-year period. If these conditions were met, the Secretary would approve a period of time for which the test may continue to be used in the NRS.
On September 12, 2011, we published in the
On August 6, 2012, we published in the
On January 25, 2013, we announced in the
On December 12, 2013, we announced in the
The Secretary publishes here the list of tests and test forms determined to be suitable for use in the NRS. These include: (1) The eight tests previously approved for a seven-year period from February 2, 2010; and (2) four tests previously approved for an extended period through June 30, 2015. These four tests were approved for this extended period through June 30, 2015 with a set of conditions for each test that the test publisher must meet by the completion of the approval period.
Adult education programs must use only the approved forms and computer delivery formats for the tests published in this notice. If a particular test form or computer delivery format is not explicitly specified for a test in this notice, it is not approved for use in the NRS.
(a) The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use at all Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary Education (ASE) levels and at all English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS for a period of seven years beginning on February 2, 2010:
(1)
(2)
(a) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ABE and ASE levels of the NRS until June 30, 2015:
(1)
(2)
(b) The Secretary has determined that the following tests are suitable for use at all ESL levels of the NRS until June 30, 2015:
(1)
(2)
For the four tests listed above with approvals extended through June 30, 2015, the Secretary will determine whether the test publishers have met the conditions necessary for full approval without conditions. If the Secretary determines that the conditions have not been met for any of these four tests and the Secretary therefore does not provide full approval beyond June 30, 2015, those tests may still be used in the NRS during a sunset period ending on June 30, 2016.
The sunset period for an expiring test allows a State and local provider to transition to other tests suitable for use in the NRS. The State and local provider may use the transition period to select new tests, purchase appropriate inventories of assessment materials, and provide training to staff.
Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may revoke the determination that a test is suitable (see 34 CFR 462.12(e)). If the Secretary revokes the determination of suitability, the Secretary announces through the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S. C. 9212.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting,
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, December 8, 2014; 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2014; 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Doubletree Hilton Hotel Bethesda; 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
John Kogut, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC–25/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–1290; Telephone: (301) 903–1298.
December 8–9, 2014
Department of Energy, Office of Science.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Friday, November 21, 2014; 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; CST.
Hyatt Regency New Orleans, 601 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70113.
Melea Baker, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research; U.S. Department of Energy; SC–21/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–1290; Telephone (301) 903–7486.
1. Dial Toll-Free Number: 1–866–740–1260 (U.S. & Canada).
2. International participants dial:
3. Enter access code 9039560, followed by “#”.
If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Melea Baker, (301) 903–7486 or (
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Monday, November 17, 2014, 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 18, 2014, 8:30 a.m.–4:15 p.m.
Snelling Conference Center, 3165 Washington Road, Augusta, GA 30907.
Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952–7886.
Monday, November 17, 2014:
Tuesday, November 18, 2014:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and re-authorized in the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
November 20, 2014 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. and November 21, 2014 8:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m.
American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20009.
Elliott Levine, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–1476; Email:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
Take notice that on October 10, 2014, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, TX 77251, filed in Docket No. CP15–4–000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, seeking authorization to abandon a 12.191 mile, 16-inch offshore gathering lateral extending from High Island Block 52 to High Island Block 10, a 0.12 mile, 8-inch crossover gathering lateral connecting the 16-inch offshore gathering lateral to an underwater connection with Transco's 24-inch pipeline in High Island Block 10, Offshore Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. Transco also proposes to abandon metering and other auxiliary facilities located on High Island Block 52, High Island Block 23, and High Island Block 24 platforms. Transco provides no firm transportation through the facilities to be abandoned and the proposed abandonment will have no impact on the daily design capacity of, or operating conditions on, Transco's pipeline system. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Scott C. Turkington, Director, Rates & Regulatory, phone: (713) 215–3391, or by email at:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 12, 2014.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Northern Access 2016 Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (Supply) and Empire Pipeline Inc. (Empire) (collectively National Fuel) in Pennsylvania and New York. The
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. The Commission staff will also use the scoping process to help determine whether preparation of an environmental impact statement is more appropriate for this Project based upon the potential significance of the anticipated levels of impact. Please note that the scoping period will close on November 21, 2014.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
National Fuel staff will be available from 6:00–7:00 p.m., prior to the public scoping meetings at the locations listed above.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
National Fuel plans to construct and operate certain facilities in Pennsylvania and New York which collectively would provide about 350,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas transportation service to the northeastern United States and Canada. Supply would provide approximately 350,000 Dth/d of new firm natural gas transportation service from a receipt point in McKean County, Pennsylvania to an interconnection with Empire's existing pipeline system in Niagara County, New York. Empire would provide approximately 350,000 Dth/d of new firm transportation service from such Supply interconnection to Empire's existing interconnection with TransCanada Pipelines Limited.
The planned project would consist of the following Supply components:
• Construction of approximately 97 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline, from Sergeant Township, McKean County, Pennsylvania, to an interconnection with Supply's existing Line X-North, near Supply's existing Porterville Compressor Station in the Town of Elma, Erie County, New York;
• an addition of approximately 5,000 horsepower to Porterville Compressor Station; and
• an interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline's 200 Line in the Town of Wales, Erie County, New York.
• Construction of a 24-inch pipeline segment of approximately 4 miles, replacing 3.3 miles of existing 16-inch Supply pipeline and 0.7 miles of existing Empire pipeline in the towns of Wheatfield and Pendleton, Niagara County, New York;
• construction of a new, approximately 22,000 horsepower compressor station in the Town of Pendleton, Niagara County, New York; and
• construction of a new natural gas dehydration facility in the Town of Wheatfield, Niagara County, New York.
National Fuel is still in the planning phase of the Project and workspace requirements have not been finalized. However, National Fuel is planning on using a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the 24-inch-diameter pipeline segments. Following construction, National Fuel would retain a 50-foot-wide easement for operation of the pipelines. National Fuel would also require land for additional workspaces at road, railroad, waterbody, and wetland crossings; topsoil storage; access roads; storage or pipeyards; and for other purposes during construction. About 92 percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing power line or pipeline rights-of-way.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• fisheries and aquatic resources;
• threatened, endangered, and other special-status species;
• land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual resources;
• socioeconomics;
• cultural resources;
• air quality and noise;
• reliability and safety; and
• cumulative environmental impacts.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we participated in public open house meetings sponsored by National Fuel in the project area in August 2014 to explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders. We have also begun to contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. We will publish and distribute the EA for public comment. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 6.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities, comments made to us at National Fuel's open houses, preliminary consultations with other agencies, and the environmental information provided by National Fuel. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis:
• Forested areas including fragmentation;
• agricultural areas including impacts on soils;
• property values;
• surface water;
• groundwater including wells and springs;
• wildlife and vegetation;
• federal and state-listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species;
• eminent domain; and
• cumulative impacts.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before November 21, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF14–18–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Once National Fuel files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Alterna Springerville LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 12, 2014.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On June 26, 2014, Symphony Hydro LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Symphony Hydro Project to be located on Mississippi River, near the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Two new 1.5-foot-thick by 56-foot-wide by 60-foot-high reinforced concrete bulkheads containing two variable speed 1,700-
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On October 2, 2014, the Las Vegas Wash Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Las Vegas Wash Hydroelectric Project to be located on Las Vegas Wash, in the city of Lake Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would use the existing Las Vegas Wash and associated diversion and penstocks. The source of water through the project is waste streams from the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, NV. Flows would return to the Las Vegas Wash at or near the existing point of return. The proposed project would be on privately owned lands and prescriptive easement right-of-ways. The existing Las Vegas Wash pipelines are owned by the City of Henderson, NV, and located on private lands by easement. The project would consist of the following: (1) An existing concrete diversion/inlet structure with two gates; (2) two existing 10,204-foot-long, 84-inch-diameter, side-by-side penstocks that pass beneath Lake Las Vegas; (3) a new connection to the existing penstocks; (4) a new powerhouse located adjacent to the existing outfall structure for the Las Vegas Wash, containing one 2.1-megawatt Francis turbine; (5) a switchyard; and (6) a 900-foot-long, 15-kV transmission line, which would interconnect into the utility distribution system owned by NV Energy. Existing roads would access the project. The project would operate in a run-of-river mode using flows of the Las Vegas Wash consistent with historical operations. One of the two penstocks would be used for bypass flows. The estimated annual generation of the Las Vegas Wash Hydroelectric Project would be 16.5 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on certain procedures for implementing access to official authorizations electronically in the Commission's Universal Licensing System or Antenna Structure Registration System, while providing options for receiving authorizations on paper through the U.S. Postal Service.
Comments are due on or before November 10, 2014.
All filings in response to the Notice must refer to WT Docket No. 14–161. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau strongly encourages parties to file comments electronically. Comment may be submitted electronically by the following methods:
• Federal Communications Commission's Web site:
• By email. To obtain instructions for filing by email, filers should send an email to
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Attn: WTB/MD, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. All envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• In addition, Parties are requested to send one copy of their comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160, email
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:
Mary Bucher at (202) 418–2656 or via email at
This is a summary of Public Notice (DA 14–1478) released on October 10, 2014. The complete text of the Public Notice is available for viewing via the Commission's ECFS Web site by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 14–161. The complete text of the Public Notice is also available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202–488–5300, fax 202–488–5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site:
In the Notice, the Bureau announces enhancements to the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) and Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) System to allow all commercial, private and public safety wireless service licensees and ASR registrants electronic access to their current official authorizations in “Active” status. For purposes of the Notice, the term “authorization” includes all current commercial, private, and public safety wireless service licenses, commercial radio operator permits, vessel exemptions, and spectrum leases in “Active” status and authorized in parts 1, 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's rules. The term also includes all current FCC Forms 854R, Antenna Structure Registrations, in “Active” status, including “Granted” or “Constructed,” and authorized under part 17 of the Commission's rules. The term does not include current authorizations in any status other than “Active,” including, for example, current authorizations in “Expired,” “Cancelled,” or “Terminated” status in ULS, or “Cancelled,” “Dismantled,” or “Terminated” status in the ASR System. In addition, the term does not include spectrum subleases or private commons arrangements, which the Commission will continue to process on a manual basis, nor does the term include authorizations archived in ULS. Antenna Structure Registrations are not archived in the ASR System. Finally, while other Commission Bureaus manage other licensing systems, the enhancements in the Notice apply only to ULS and the ASR System. As of September 1 of this year, 2,153,265 current authorizations in Active status were stored in ULS and the ASR System, and paper copies of official authorizations were mailed to licensees and registrants. The Commission's “Report on FCC Process Reform” released earlier this year recommended that, “to the extent permitted by Federal records retention requirements,” licensing Bureaus “should eliminate paper copies of licenses.” The Report further stated that “[c]onsideration should be given whether to have a transition period during which certain classes of licensees (such as small, rural providers or amateur radio operators) are excluded or permitted to opt-out of an electronic-only approach.”
To implement this recommendation, upon adoption of final procedures, the Commission will stop providing paper copies of current authorizations to licensees and registrants unless it is notified that the licensee or registrant wishes to continue receiving official authorizations on paper. In the interim, the Commission will continue to print and mail out official authorizations unless it is notified that licensees or registrants wish to stop receiving official authorizations on paper. The Bureau takes the following actions:
• The Bureau deems the electronic version of an authorization stored in ULS or the ASR System as the official Commission document. All licensees and registrants can access, through License Manager in ULS or ASR Dashboard (formerly ASR Manager) in the ASR System, the official electronic versions of their current authorizations in Active status, whether granted prior to or after release of the Notice. Only Commission licensees and registrants are afforded access to their official electronic authorizations through License Manager or ASR Dashboard.
• The Bureau seeks comment on certain aspects of its proposed modernized procedures for implementing access to official authorizations electronically through License Manager, through ASR Dashboard, and by email, while providing options for continuing to receive authorizations on paper through the U.S. Postal Service.
• The Bureau initiates an “interim test period,” which will continue until final procedures become effective. During the interim test period, licensees and registrants may elect to stop receiving authorizations on paper through the U.S. Postal Service. If no such election is made, the Commission will continue to print and mail out
• The general public will continue to be able to access unofficial reference copies of authorizations through ULS or the ASR System.
Currently, once an application is granted, ULS or the ASR System generates an authorization from information provided in the granted application. The authorization is then printed on paper, placed in a postage-paid envelope, and mailed out through the U.S. Postal Service to the licensee or registrant. The Bureau finds that an electronic, online authorization can be considered the official Commission authorization under both the Federal Records Act of 1950 and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Bureau therefore deems the electronic version of an authorization generated from the grant of an application and stored in ULS or the ASR System to be the Commission's official document. The Bureau notes that while it is deeming the electronic version of an authorization stored in ULS to be the Commission's official document, lifetime commercial radio operator licenses issued prior to implementation of ULS remain valid even though the license itself is not stored in ULS. The Commission currently mails the official copy of a paper authorization only to the licensee or registrant. In keeping with this practice, under the modernized process, a licensee or registrant may access its official electronic authorizations by securely logging into License Manager in ULS or ASR Dashboard in the ASR System, after which the licensee or registrant can download, save, and print copies of its authorizations, to the extent needed.
Making the official electronic authorization available to a licensee through License Manager in ULS or to a registrant through its ASR Dashboard in the ASR System allows the licensee or registrant to obtain an additional copy of an official authorization without Commission action in the event its existing copy is lost or destroyed. While under this enhanced process the need to request a duplicate paper license or registration will be virtually eliminated, the Commission will retain the capability in ULS and the ASR System that allows licensees and registrants to file applications requesting duplicate paper copies of official authorizations. The Bureau notes that if a licensee elects to submit an application for a duplicate paper license, the licensee would file its application along with any application fee required under Commission rules.
The Commission will continue providing unofficial reference copies of authorizations online through ULS and the ASR System. The reference copy includes the most recent information on the authorization, thus providing the public with current licensing or registration data without compromising the official status of the official authorization.
The Bureau seeks comment on certain aspects of the modernization process, under which it is seeking to eliminate the distribution of paper authorizations to the greatest extent possible. Under the proposed procedures, once an application is granted, ULS or the ASR System will generate an official electronic authorization. The Commission, however, will no longer print out the authorization on paper and mail it to the licensee or registrant unless it is notified that the licensee or registrant wishes to continue receiving its official authorization(s) on paper.
Second, a licensee or registrant could contact the Licensing Support Center via phone, web or mail to request paper authorizations. Using any of these methods, which are also detailed below, the licensee or registrant would be required to provide its FRN(s), and whether its request applied to ULS or the ASR System, or both. After the Commission processed the request, once any pending or future application associated with the FRN(s) that the licensee or registrant provided was granted, the resulting authorization(s) would be printed on paper and mailed through the U.S. Postal Service to the licensee or registrant at the licensee or registrant address specified on the application. The Bureau notes that if a licensee or registrant elects to receive paper authorizations using any of these options, the licensee or registrant would also continue to have access to their authorizations electronically through License Manager or ASR Dashboard. Finally, the Bureau notes that the process for obtaining duplicate paper copies of licenses or registrations by filing an application, along with any applicable filing fee, through ULS or the ASR System would remain available under its proposal. The Bureau seeks comment on these options for licensees and registrants that wish to continue receiving their official authorizations on paper by mail.
The Bureau's intent is to provide access to official electronic authorizations and to address associated issues with regard to making documents available electronically using today's technology, while also accommodating those who wish or need to continue receiving paper authorizations through the U.S. Postal Service. The Bureau is also aware that over time, this enhanced process will continue to change as technology evolves. That said, the Bureau is also interested in whether there are other issues that need to be addressed in this transition to official electronic authorizations, and how those issues may be resolved.
In conjunction with seeking comment on certain proposed procedures, the Bureau is initiating an “interim test period,” which will continue until final procedures become effective. In particular, the Commission has enhanced ULS and the ASR System to make some of the options included in the Bureau's proposal available for voluntary use during this interim test period so that licensees and registrants can evaluate their experience in accessing official electronic authorizations online and provide feedback to the Bureau through the public comment process. All licensees and registrants can access through License Manager or ASR Dashboard the official electronic versions of their current authorizations in Active status, whether granted prior to or after release of the Notice.
They may also elect to stop receiving paper copies. During this interim test period, once a pending application is granted, and ULS or the ASR System has generated the official authorization, the Commission will continue to print the authorization on paper, place it in a postage-paid envelope, and mail it through the U.S. Postal Service to the licensee or registrant, unless the licensee or registrant elects to stop receiving paper copies using the setting now included in both License Manager and ASR Dashboard. If a licensee or registrant wishes to stop receiving official authorizations on paper during the interim test period, the licensee or registrant must change the setting so that the Commission will no longer print and mail out on paper any official authorizations associated with the licensee's or registrant's FRN. The procedure for changing the setting is detailed below.
Finally, some of the Commission's wireless service-specific rules require licensees to retain current authorizations as part of their station records, and, for some services, licensees must post paper copies of their station authorizations at certain locations. In addition, Commission rules require antenna structure owners to post the Antenna Structure Registration Number at each facility, and to provide all tenant licensees (and permittees) on the structure access to a copy of the FCC Form 854R, Antenna Structure Registration. The Bureau notes that enhancing the Commission's licensing and Antenna Structure Registration systems to replace official paper authorizations with official electronic authorizations does not affect these rules. The Bureau further notes that the Commission recently adopted revisions to its part 17 rules, which become effective October 24, 2014, including modified requirements for posting Antenna Structure Registration Numbers and mailing registrations to tenant licensees and permittees. The enhancements described in the Notice are independent of the proposals adopted in that rulemaking.
ULS. The Commission is currently providing both temporary and permanent links on the License Manager homepage to download authorizations in ULS. The temporary link, “download your official electronic authorizations
ASR. The link to download Antenna Structure Registrations, “Download Official Registration,” can be found on the registrant's ASR Dashboard homepage as well as under the “My Registrations” tab on its ASR Dashboard.
ULS. The Commission is also providing both temporary and permanent links in ULS on the License Manager homepage to access the new default setting that allows licensees and registrants to notify the Commission whether they wish to receive authorizations on paper through the U.S. Postal Service. The temporary link, “Change your paper authorization preferences
ASR. The default setting in the ASR System is located on the home page of a registrant's ASR Dashboard and will look like this during the interim test period:
If a licensee or registrant wishes to continue receiving official authorizations on paper during the interim test period, they do not need to make any changes to the settings in License Manager or ASR Dashboard.
If a licensee or registrant wishes to stop receiving official authorizations on paper during the interim test period, the licensee or registrant must change the setting(s) described above by checking the “No” box. If the setting is changed to “No,” the Commission will no longer print and mail out on paper any official authorizations associated with the licensee's or registrant's FRN(s).
ULS. Upon adoption of final procedures, the Commission would continue to provide, for a period of time, the same temporary and permanent links described in the interim test period instructions on the License Manager homepage to access the default setting in ULS. Once accessed, the default setting would look like this upon implementation of final procedures:
ASR. Upon adoption of final procedures, the default setting in the ASR System would be located on the homepage of the registrant's ASR Dashboard and would look like this upon implementation of final procedures:
Upon adoption of final procedures, if a licensee or registrant wished to only obtain official authorizations electronically through ULS or the ASR System, they would not need to make any changes to the settings in License Manager or ASR Dashboard. If the licensee or registrant did not change the setting, the Commission would no longer print and mail out on paper official authorizations associated with the licensee's or registrant's FRN(s).
Once the Bureau implements final procedures, if a licensee or registrant wished to receive official authorizations on paper, the licensee or registrant could change the setting(s) described above by checking the “Yes” box.
OR
The licensee or registrant could contact the Licensing Support Center via phone, Web or mail. All requests would be required to include the licensee's or registrant's FRN(s), and whether the request applied to ULS or the ASR System, or both.
If a licensee or registrant changed the setting(s) described above to “Yes” or used any of these other options, once an application was granted, the Commission would print and mail out on paper the resulting official authorization(s) associated with the licensee's or registrant's FRN(s). Finally, the Bureau notes that if a licensee or registrant elected to receive paper authorizations upon implementation of final procedures, the licensee or registrant would also continue to have access to their authorizations electronically through License Manager or ASR Dashboard.
This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 29, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—John Schmidt—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
1.
1.
Office of Human Resources Management, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice.
The Administrator of U.S. General Services Administration has determined that the establishment of the GSA Labor Management Relations Council (GLMRC), a Federal Advisory Committee is necessary and in the public's interest. A charter for the GLMRC has been prepared and will be filed no earlier than 15 days following the publication of this notice. In addition, this notice establishes criteria and procedures for the nomination of GLMRC members.
Ms. Temple L. Wilson, Designated Federal Officer, General Services Administration, Labor Management Relations Council, Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, email
This notice advises of the establishment of the GLMRC in compliance with Executive Order 13522, and is published in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92–463).
The purpose of the GLMRC is to promote collaboration between managers and employees, through their exclusive representatives, for continued delivery of the highest quality services to the American taxpayer. The GLMRC, serving as a complement to the existing collective bargaining process, will provide a non-adversarial forum for management and employees' exclusive representatives to discuss workplace challenges and problems and endeavor to develop solutions jointly. The GLMRC will seek to provide advice that allows employees through their exclusive representatives to have pre-decisional involvement (PDI) in all workplace matters to the fullest extent practicable and by making a good-faith attempt to resolve concerns related to any proposed changes in conditions of employment, including those involving the subjects set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(1). The GLMRC will evaluate and document changes in employee satisfaction, labor-management relations climate, and organizational performance. The GLMRC is a non-discretionary FACA committee. The functions of the GLMRC are advisory only.
An individual who is a Federally-registered lobbyist in their individual capacity may not serve on the GLMRC. GLMRC members will not receive compensation. Travel reimbursements are permitted. The meetings are open to public observers, unless prior notice has been provided for a closed meeting.
General Services Administration, Office of Human Resource Management, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
Program information as well as summaries of meetings and a roster of committee members are available on the NCVHS home page of the HHS Web site:
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 21,838.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 28, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 262), FDA may only approve a biologics license application for a biological product that is safe, pure, and potent. When a biological product is approved and enters the market, the product is introduced to a larger patient population in settings different from clinical trials. New information generated during the postmarketing period offers further insight into the benefits and risks of the product, and evaluation of this information is important to insure its safe use. FDA issued the Adverse Experience Reporting (AER) requirements in part 600 (21 CFR part 600) to enable FDA to take actions necessary for the protection of the public health in response to reports of adverse experiences related to licensed biological products.
The primary purpose of FDA's AER system is to identify potentially serious safety problems with licensed biological products. Although the premarket approval process is meant to disclose a general safety profile of a biological product's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the licensed biological product provides the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. In addition, production and/or distribution problems have contaminated biological products in the past. AER reports are obtained from a variety of sources, including manufacturers, patients, physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Identification of new and unexpected safety issues through the analysis of the data in AERS contributes directly to increased public health protection. For example, evaluation of these safety issues enables FDA to take focused regulatory action. Such action may include, but is not limited to, important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning), coordination with manufacturers to ensure adequate corrective action is taken, and removal of a biological product from the market when necessary.
Section 600.80(c)(1) requires licensed manufacturers or any person whose name appears on the label of a licensed biological product to report each adverse experience that is both serious and unexpected, whether foreign or domestic, as soon as possible but in no case later than 15 calendar days of initial receipt of the information by the licensed manufacturer. These reports are known as postmarketing 15-day Alert reports. This section also requires licensed manufacturers to submit any follow-up reports within 15 calendar days of receipt of new information or as requested by FDA, and if additional information is not obtainable, to maintain records of the unsuccessful steps taken to seek additional information. In addition, this section requires a person who submits an adverse action report to the licensed manufacturer, rather than FDA, to maintain a record of this action.
Section 600.80(e) requires licensed manufacturers to submit a 15-day Alert report for an adverse experience obtained from a postmarketing clinical study only if the licensed manufacturer concludes that there is a reasonable possibility that the product caused the adverse experience. Section 600.80(c)(2) requires licensed manufacturers to report each adverse experience not reported in a postmarketing 15-day Alert report at quarterly intervals, for 3 years from the date of issuance of the biologics license, and then at annual intervals. The majority of these periodic reports are submitted annually since a large percentage of currently licensed biological products have been licensed longer than 3 years. Section 600.80(i) requires licensed manufacturers to maintain for a period of 10 years records of all adverse experiences known to the licensed manufacturer, including raw data and any correspondence relating to the adverse experiences. Section 600.81 requires licensed manufacturers to submit, at an interval of every 6 months, information about the quantity of the product distributed under the biologics
These distribution reports provide FDA with important information about products distributed under biologics licenses, including the quantity, certain lot numbers, labeled date of expiration, the fill lot numbers for the total number of dosage units of each strength or potency distributed (e.g., 50,000 per 10-milliliter vials), and date of release. FDA may require the licensed manufacturer to submit distribution reports under this section at times other than every 6 months. Under § 600.90, a licensed manufacturer may submit a waiver request for any requirements that apply to the licensed manufacturer under §§ 600.80 and 600.81. A waiver request submitted under § 600.90 must include supporting documentation.
Manufacturers of biological products for human use must keep records of each step in the manufacture and distribution of a product including any recalls. These recordkeeping requirements serve preventative and remedial purposes by establishing accountability and traceability in the manufacture and distribution of products. These requirements also enable FDA to perform meaningful inspections. Section 600.12 requires, among other things, that records must be made concurrently with the performance of each step in the manufacture and distribution of products. These records must be retained for no less than 5 years after the records of manufacture have been completed or 6 months after the latest expiration date for the individual product, whichever represents a later date. In addition, under § 600.12, manufacturers must maintain records relating to the sterilization of equipment and supplies, animal necropsy records, and records in cases of divided manufacturing responsibility with respect to a product. Under § 600.12(b)(2), manufacturers are also required to maintain complete records pertaining to the recall from distribution of any product. Furthermore, § 610.18(b) requires, in part, that the results of all periodic tests for verification of cultures and determination of freedom from extraneous organisms be recorded and maintained. The recordkeeping requirements for §§ 610.12(g), 610.13(a)(2), 610.18(d), 680.2(f) and 680.3(f) are approved under OMB control number 0910–0139.
Respondents to this collection of information include manufacturers of biological products and any person whose name appears on the label of a licensed biological product. In table 1, the number of respondents is based on the estimated number of manufacturers that are subject to those regulations or that submitted the required information to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research, FDA, in fiscal year (FY) 2013. Based on information obtained from FDA's database system, there were 131 licensed biologics manufacturers. This number excludes those manufacturers who produce Whole Blood or components of Whole Blood and in vitro diagnostic licensed products, because of the exemption under § 600.80(k). The total annual responses are based on the number of submissions received by FDA in FY 2013. There were an estimated 92,470 15-day Alert reports, 132,667 periodic reports, and 334 lot distribution reports submitted to FDA. The number of 15-day Alert reports for postmarketing studies under § 600.80(e) is included in the total number of 15-day Alert reports. FDA received 64 requests from 35 manufacturers for waivers under § 600.90, of which 63 were granted. The hours per response are based on FDA experience. The burden hours required to complete the MedWatch Form for § 600.80(c)(1), (e), and (f) are reported under OMB control number 0910–0291.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
In table 2, the number of respondents is based on the number of manufacturers subject to those regulations. Based on information obtained from FDA's database system, there were 334 licensed manufacturers of biological products in FY 2013. However, the number of recordkeepers listed for § 600.12(a) through (e) excluding (b)(2) is estimated to be 164. This number excludes manufacturers of blood and blood components because their burden hours for recordkeeping have been reported under § 606.160 in OMB control number 0910–0116. The total annual records is based on the annual average of lots released in FY 2013 (6,887), number of recalls made (1,679), and total number of adverse experience reports received (225,137) in FY 2013. The hours per record are based on FDA experience.
FDA estimates the burden of this recordkeeping as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 28, 2014.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111–31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by granting FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
Section 904(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387d(b)) states that at the request of the Secretary, each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agents thereof, must submit:
• Any or all documents (including underlying scientific information) relating to research activities, and research findings, conducted, supported, or possessed by the manufacturer (or agents thereof) on the health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiological effects of tobacco products and their constituents (including smoke constituents), ingredients, components, and additives.
• Any or all documents (including underlying scientific or financial information) relating to research activities, and research findings, conducted, supported, or possessed by the manufacturer (or agents thereof) that relate to the issue of whether a reduction in risk to health from tobacco products can occur upon the employment of technology available or known to the manufacturer.
• Any or all documents (including underlying scientific or financial information) relating to marketing research involving the use of tobacco products or marketing practices and the effectiveness of such practices used by tobacco manufacturers and distributors.
If the Secretary requests information from the manufacturer of a tobacco product not manufactured in the United States, the importer of the tobacco product is required to supply the information. FDA is requesting OMB approval of an information collection under section 904(b) of the FD&C Act. To become better informed about the impact of the use of tobacco products on the public health, FDA would request information about the effects of product pH in smokeless tobacco products from all tobacco product manufacturers. FDA would send letters to tobacco product manufacturers and importers who FDA has identified as having an obligation to respond based on information before the Agency. The requested information would include information about research requested under section 904(b) of the FD&C Act as well as information to be provided voluntarily beyond the inquiries described in section 904(b).
The proposed request would include the following information:
All documents (including underlying scientific information and financial information) relating to research activities and research findings conducted, supported, or possessed by the respondent or the respondent's agents relating to a specified set of topics listed in this document. The request includes but is not limited to documents relating to research findings and activities, if any, that the respondent possesses as the result of acquiring or merging with another company. For purposes of the request, “research” would include, but would not be limited to, focus groups, surveys, experimental clinical studies, toxicological and biochemical assays, in vivo and in vitro assays including animal testing, laboratory formulation and processing testing, taste panels, and assessments of the effectiveness of product marketing practices. The request would apply to research relating to any and all smokeless tobacco products, including but not limited to those products for research, investigational use, developmental studies, test marketing, and/or commercial marketing, and also to the
Under section 904(b) of the FD&C Act, FDA would request all documents and underlying scientific and financial information relating to research activities, research findings, and marketing research for smokeless tobacco products developed since January 1, 1980, on the following topics:
• The effect of product pH on ratio of free/bound (unprotonated/protonated) nicotine;
• the effect of product pH on user behavior;
• the effect of product pH on user subjective effects and experiences including, but not limited to, sensory effects in the mouth and throat, liking, craving and withdrawal symptoms, stimulation, concentration, and anxiety;
• the effect of product pH on user physiological responses including, but not limited to, heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, and nicotine pharmacokinetics; and
• for smokeless tobacco products that have a pH of 7.2 or less, marketing research that includes attractiveness or appeal to new users, inexperienced users, and/or to persons under the age of 25.
Research and development of methodology for adjusting the pH of smokeless tobacco products would be specifically excluded from this 904(b) request.
With respect to the topics listed, FDA would request only the following documents and information:
• Study proposals, original implemented protocols (including all amendments), analysis plans, agreements, notebooks, data collection tools, including but not limited to, forms and assessment scales for planned, ongoing, or completed studies, surveys, and other research, whether for external release or internal use;
• final data analyses and reports regarding studies, surveys, data compilations, or other research, whether for external or internal use (if there were no final analyses, interim data analyses would be included in the request);
• posters and/or presentations exhibited or to be exhibited at external meetings or conferences if the underlying data has not been presented in other documents and information within the request;
• manuscripts, articles, editorials, and letters that have been submitted for publication but not yet published (e.g., in review, accepted, rejected); and
• underlying data (e.g., in the form of spreadsheets, datasets, charts, tables, and diagrams) analyzed to produce any of the data analyses, reports, posters, manuscripts, or articles requested previously in this notice.
FDA would request only the final versions of documents, or in the absence of a final version, the most recent draft of each document. Published (i.e., publically available) press releases, abstracts, editorials, letters, manuscripts, material safety data sheets, and Department of Health and Human Services correspondences, would not be requested, although FDA would appreciate a list of such publications provided as a separate appendix. Data supporting summary reports would be included in the request, and FDA would ask that spreadsheets or datasets be submitted both in PDF and in a file type and structured format that allows for meaningful review and analysis of the data (e.g., Excel (.xls), comma separated values (.csv), or SAS transport (.xpt) file formats). Also, FDA would request relevant data submissions be accompanied by the name and version of the software used to create the file, and names and definitions of variables and copies of programs and macros needed to generate the analyses. FDA would also ask that respondents include any data analyses that stratify scientific results by gender, race, ethnicity, age, or other similar factors.
To provide context and background for each document, FDA would ask the respondent to include a load file containing metadata (e.g., manufacturer, date, author(s)) for each document. Also in the metadata load file, FDA would ask the respondents to identify the presence of each document in the University of California San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (LTDL) as one of the following: Present with the Bates number (begin Bates number to end Bates number), not present, or unknown.
As an option, information responsive to the request that has been previously provided to FDA under sections 904(a)(1), 904(a)(3), 904(c)(1), 904(c)(2), or 904(c)(3) of the FD&C Act would not have to be resubmitted as long as the document was fully referenced in the metadata load file.
FDA would ask the respondent to submit voluntarily the following additional information, as applicable, to provide context and background for FDA:
• A summary (one to five pages in length) for each of the topics previously mentioned in this notice, that includes the number and type of documents included, and a high level overview of the content; and
• an explanation of the scientific and business reasons, rationale, or justification for developing and marketing smokeless tobacco products with different pH values, including expected and observed perception and behavior of current and potential consumers.
This is a new collection of information. FDA would use the information to assess the effects of pH of smokeless tobacco products on consumers and the public health. In the
(Comment 1) The Agency should request all document versions, including drafts, as well as comments on those versions and reasons for changes made in subsequent versions.
(Response) FDA believes the request to prepare a submission that includes drafts including related metadata will be overly burdensome for the respondent. Additionally, a request to be provided the reason for changes made in subsequent versions is beyond the inquiries described in section 904(b). FDA clarified the request to note the original implemented protocol is to be submitted. FDA would contact manufacturers, if additional information is needed to facilitate the Agency's review of the submission.
(Comment 2) Do not limit the request to SAS datasets as to not exclude other statistical software.
(Response) It is FDA's intent that data not be excluded from the request based upon the statistical analysis software used. The proposed request asks that data be provided in a file type and structured format that allows for meaningful review and analysis of the data. The request was clarified to note that SAS.xpt is a recommended format for datasets.
(Comment 3) The Agency should request the LTDL tobacco identification (TID) number or URL since these are unique to the document.
(Response) Because the manufacturer does not assign the TID number or URL, FDA believes requesting this information would be overly burdensome for the respondent and
(Comment 4) It would be overly burdensome for the respondent to locate data and provide the requested software for information dating back to January 1, 1970, and FDA should focus the information for more recent times.
(Response) FDA believes the time period for this request should coincide with the commercial availability of smokeless tobacco products with different pH values because industry research on this topic is limited in the public domain. FDA has considered the scientific value of the data and information as well as the burden on respondents to provide such information to FDA. Therefore, FDA revised the request to ask for documents developed since January 1, 1980.
(Comment 5) The burden for the collection was underestimated given that it is likely older documents may only exist in hard copy and, if found, would be in remote storage that would be mostly searched manually.
(Response) The burden was revised given that this portion of the request may be performed manually.
(Comment 6) The burden for the collection was underestimated given that respondents would need to perform document-by-document search of a third party site to provide the requested metadata from LTDL.
(Response) The burden was revised given that this portion of the request may be performed manually.
(Comment 7) It would be overly burdensome for respondents to provide the amount of metadata requested for documents previously submitted to FDA in lieu of providing the Agency with all of the responsive documents it locates.
(Response) FDA clarified the purpose of the metadata load file and also clarified that the respondent has the option to provide metadata for previously submitted documents.
(Comment 8) It would take at least 90 days to provide a response to the request.
(Response) Given the Agency's experience with previous submissions under section 904(a)(4) and 904(b) of the FD&C Act, FDA would request a response within 60 days from the date of the letter and request respondents that anticipate difficulties with the document production to contact FDA within 30 days of the date of the letter. FDA will provide assistance in resolving any technical difficulties and facilitate compliance with the timeline.
(Comment 9) The Agency previously estimated an average of 200 hours per response for the Agency's request for dissolvable tobacco products in 2011.
(Response) FDA has since learned from experience with document submissions under section 904(a)(4) and 904(b) of the FD&C Act that some respondents have electronic document systems. Thus, estimates for this collection reflect automation capabilities for processing and managing document submissions.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We estimate the capital costs associated with this document to be $274. This estimate is based upon: (1) 3 Submissions being submitted by mailing an average of 10 CDs per envelope ($29), (2) 3 submissions being submitted by mailing a package of paper documents weighing an average of 50 pounds total ($186), and (3) 119 submissions of 1 business class letter describing that no documents are available (119 × $0.49 (the price of a first class business stamp), or $59).
FDA is drawing from tobacco health document submissions under section 904(a)(4) and 904(b) of the FD&C Act, our interaction with the public, and our experience to inform the burden estimates associated with this information collection. Additionally, based upon comments in response to the
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information to be 1,615 hours. FDA estimates it will receive 125 submissions. Based upon the expected number of tobacco product manufacturers and importers, their burden has been broken into three tiers:
• FDA anticipates documents for this request will be submitted by three tobacco product manufacturers and importers that have document collections within LTDL. Manufacturers one through three were estimated to take 201, 206, and 85 hours respectively, for an approximate average of 165 hours per response, to process and prepare a submission (i.e., cover letter, documents and information, and metadata load file). Total burden hours for this portion of the collection are expected to be 495 hours.
• FDA anticipates documents to also be submitted by three additional tobacco product manufacturers and importers that provided health documents under section 904(a)(4). Manufacturers four through six were estimated to take 304, 118, and 91 hours respectively, for an approximate average of 175 hours per response, to process and prepare a submission (i.e., cover letter, documents and information, and metadata load file). Total burden hours for this portion of the collection are expected to be 525 hours.
• FDA estimates that 119 manufacturers and importers will not possess documents responsive to this request. These manufacturers do not have documents, do not manufacture smokeless tobacco products, or do not
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of docket, request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the establishment of a docket to receive suggestions, recommendations, and comments from interested parties, including academic institutions, regulated industry, and other interested organizations on best practices for communication between FDA and investigational new drug application (IND) sponsors during drug development. These comments will help FDA identify and ultimately establish best practices to be included in a draft guidance for industry and review staff.
Submit either electronic or written comments by December 29, 2014.
Submit electronic comments to
Rachel E. Hartford, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6312, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–0331, email:
One of FDA's performance commitments made as part of the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) under Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144), related to promoting innovation through enhanced communication between FDA and sponsors during drug (including biological product) development, is for FDA to publish draft guidance for industry and review staff describing best practices for communication between FDA and IND sponsors during drug development. (A copy of the PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures; Fiscal Years 2013 Through 2017 is available on the FDA Web site at
The guidance will describe FDA's philosophy regarding timely interactive communication with IND sponsors as a core activity and the scope of appropriate interactions between the review team and the sponsor, outline the types of advice that are appropriate for sponsors to seek from FDA in pursuing their drug development program, describe the general expectations for the timing of FDA response to IND sponsor inquiries of simple and clarifying questions or referral of more complex questions to the formal meeting process, and describe best practices and communication methods (including the value of person-to-person scientific dialogue) to facilitate interactions between the FDA review team and the IND sponsor during drug development. We anticipate that the best practices will include expectations and agreement on appropriate methods (e.g., when teleconferencing or secure email may be the most appropriate means of communication) and frequency of such communications.
To help FDA identify and ultimately establish best practices to be included in a draft guidance, FDA is requesting public suggestions, recommendations, and comments for each aspect of the best practices mentioned above. FDA will consider all comments submitted. FDA generally will not respond directly to the person or organization submitting the comment.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Notice; Extension of comment period.
This document announces an extension of the public comment period for the OIG
To ensure consideration, public comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. on December 29, 2014.
In commenting, please refer to file code OIG–1271–N. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot
You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, please see the Supplementary Information section.
Patrice Drew, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Office of External Affairs, at (202) 619–1368.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 14, 2014, 12:00 p.m. to November 14, 2014, 02:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on November 11, 2014 instead of November 14, 2014. The meeting time and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The Office of Policy, DHS.
Notice of task assignment for the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Johnson tasked his Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to establish a DHS Employee Morale Task Force on Thursday, October 9, 2014. The DHS Employee Morale Task Force will provide recommendations on how to improve employee morale throughout the DHS enterprise. This notice informs the public of the establishment of the DHS Employee Morale Task Force and is not a solicitation for membership.
Mike Miron, Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council and the DHS Employee Morale Task Force at 202–447–3135 or
The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Homeland Security Advisory Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Teleconference Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee will meet, via teleconference, to discuss Task Statement 87, concerning review of the policy documents providing guidance on the Coast Guard final rule entitled, “Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements.” This meeting will be open to the public.
The teleconference meeting will take place on Tuesday, December 9, 2014, from 1 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that this meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.
Written comments for distribution to Committee members and inclusion on the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Web site must be submitted on or before November 25, 2014. Contact Mr. Breyer as indicated in the
To participate by phone, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer listed below in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer listed below in the
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be identified by Docket No. USCG–2014–0956 and submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
A public oral comment period will be held after the working group report. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment period will end following the last call for comments.
This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG–2014–0956, at
Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, telephone 202–372–1445, or at
If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–9826 or 1–800–647–5527.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5, United States Code, Appendix.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee is an advisory Committee established under the Secretary's authority in section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
A copy of all meeting documentation is available at
The agenda for the December 9, 2014, Committee teleconference meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction;
(2) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum;
(3) Designated Federal Officer announcements;
(4) Report from the Task Statement 87 working group chairperson concerning review of the policy documents providing guidance on the Coast Guard final rule entitled, “Implementation of the Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, and Changes to National Endorsements”, which was published in the
(5) Public comment period/presentations.
(6) Discussion of working group recommendations. The Committee will review the information presented on this issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the working group and approve/formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration. Official action on these recommendations may be taken by the committee on this date.
(7) Closing remarks.
(8) Adjournment of meeting.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652–0001, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Send your comments by November 28, 2014. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA–11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6011; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas pipelines and related well field activities in Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before November 28, 2014.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP application by one of the following methods. Please refer to the permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at Environmental Review, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505–248–6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed American burying beetle (
Applicant requests a new permit for gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) will meet as indicated below:
November 13, 2014 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and November 14, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon. Daily sessions may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule.
Tara Martinak, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573–4519, or email
The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act (CMPA) of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–399). The SMAC provides representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain CMPA; recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs; and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area. Agenda items for the November 13–14 sesson include a lengthy discussion on managing wildfire for multiple objectives; a review of wildland fire stabilization and rehabilitation efforts; and regular business items such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, member round-table, the Designated Federal Official's update and planning the next meeting's agenda. A public comment period will be available each day of each meeting. The public is welcome to attend all sessions. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of five minutes.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808–6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 1220 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. 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
A person or party who wishes to protest against this survey must file a written notice with the Oregon State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Oregon State Director within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
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 Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, intends to terminate the process for preparing a Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), Comprehensive Transportation and Travel Management (CTTM) Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Las Vegas Field Office.
Chris Linehan, telephone 702–515–5236, or email
A Notice of Intent To Prepare a RAMP, a CTTM Plan for the Las Vegas Field Office, Nevada and Associated EIS was published in the
Prior to the decision to terminate the process, public scoping meetings were held on March 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, 2011, in Searchlight, Mesquite, Las Vegas, Goodsprings, and Overton respectively. Work also ensued on a draft EIS, but the draft EIS was neither completed nor released.
40 CFR 1501.7; 43 CFR 1610.2 and 8342.1–2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice/request for public meeting and public comments—The National Christmas Tree Lighting and the subsequent 28-day event.
The National Park Service is seeking public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2014 National Christmas Tree Lighting and the subsequent 28-day event. The general plan and theme for the event is the celebration of the holiday season with the display of the traditional American symbols of Christmas.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 6, 2014. Written comments will be accepted until November 6, 2014.
The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. on November 6, 2014, in Room 234 of the National Capital Region Headquarters Building, at 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC (East Potomac Park). Written comments may be sent to the Manager, President's Park, National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC 20242. Due to delays in mail delivery, it is recommended that comments be provided by telefax at (202) 208–1643 or by email to
Peter Lonsway weekdays between 7:30 a.m., and 4 p.m., at (202) 208–1631.
The National Park Service is seeking public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2014 National Christmas Tree Lighting and the subsequent 28-day event, which opens on December 4, 2014, on the Ellipse (President's Park), south of the White House. The general plan and theme for the event is the celebration of the holiday season, where the park visitor will have the opportunity to view the lighting of the National Christmas tree, attend musical presentations and visit the yuletide displays of the traditional and familiar American symbols of Christmas, a national holiday. As in the past, these traditional and familiar American symbols will be the National Christmas Tree, the smaller trees representing the various states, District of Columbia and the territories, various seasonal musical presentations, and a traditional crèche which is not owned by the Government.
In order to facilitate this process, the National Park Service will hold a meeting at 9:00 a.m. on November 6, 2014, in Room 234 of the National Capital Region Headquarters Building, at 1100 Ohio Drive SW., Washington, DC (East Potomac Park).
Persons who would like to comment at the meeting should notify the National Park Service by November 6, 2014, by calling the White House Visitor Center weekdays between 7:30 a.m., and 4 p.m., at (202) 208–1631.
In addition, public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2014
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
List of Restricted Joint Bidders.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 556.41, each entity within one of the following groups is restricted from bidding with any entity in any of the other following groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held during the bidding period November 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. This List of Restricted Joint Bidders will cover the period November 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015, and replace the prior list published on May 5, 2014, which covered the period May 1, 2014, through October 31, 2014.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice of extension.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), ONRR is notifying the public that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR part 1220. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove this information collection request but may respond after 30 days; therefore, you should submit your public comments to OMB by November 28, 2014 for the assurance of consideration.
You may submit your written comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB Control Number 1012–0009), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by email to
For questions on technical issues, contact Mr. James Smith, Audit and Compliance Management (ACM), ONRR, telephone (303) 231–3705, or email
ONRR collects and uses this information to determine all allowable direct and allocable joint costs and credits under § 1220.011 incurred during the lease term, appropriate overhead allowance permitted on these costs under § 1220.012, and allowances for capital recovery calculated under § 1220.020. ONRR also collects this information to ensure royalties or net profit share payments are accurately valued and appropriately paid. This ICR affects only oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the OCS.
Title 30 CFR part 1220 covers the net profit share lease (NPSL) program and establishes reporting requirements for determining the net profit share base under § 1220.021 and calculating net profit share payments due the Federal Government for the production of oil and gas from leases under § 1220.022.
To encourage exploration and development of oil and gas leases on submerged Federal lands on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, promulgated regulations at 30 CFR part 260—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing. Also, BOEM promulgated specific implementing regulations for the NPSL bidding system at § 260.110(d). BOEM established the NPSL bidding system to balance a fair market return to the Federal Government for the lease of its public lands with a fair profit to companies risking their investment capital. The system provides an incentive for early and expeditious exploration and development and provides for sharing the risks by the lessee and the Federal Government. The NPSL bidding system incorporates a fixed capital recovery system as a means through which the lessee recovers costs of exploration and development from production revenues, along with a reasonable return on investment.
The Federal Government does not receive a profit share payment from an NPSL until the lessee shows a credit balance in its capital account; that is, cumulative revenues and other credits exceed cumulative costs. Lessees multiply the credit balance by the net profit share rate (30 to 50 percent), resulting in the amount of net profit share payment due the Federal Government.
ONRR requires lessees to maintain an NPSL capital account for each lease under § 1220.010, which transfers to a new owner when sold. Following the cessation of production, lessees are also required to provide either an annual or a monthly report to the Federal Government, using data from the capital account until the lease is terminated, expired, or relinquished.
The NPSL lessees must notify the BOEM of their intent to take inventory so the BOEM Director may be represented at the taking of inventory under 1220.032. Each lessee must file a report after each inventory is taken, reporting the controllable material under § 1220.031.
When non-operators of an NPSL call for an audit, they must notify ONRR. When ONRR calls for an audit, the lessee must notify all non-operators on the lease. These requirements are located at § 1220.033.
The information we collect under this ICR is essential in order to determine when net profit share payments are due and to ensure lessees properly value and pay royalties or net profit share payments.
We are requesting OMB approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and may also result in the inability to confirm the accurate royalty value. Proprietary information submitted to ONRR under this collection is protected, and no items of a sensitive nature are included in this information collection.
All fourteen lessees report monthly because all current NPSLs are in producing status. Because the requirements for establishment of capital accounts at § 1220.010(a) and capital account annual reporting at § 1220.031(a) are necessary only during non-producing status of a lease, we included only one response annually for these requirements, in case a new NPSL is established. We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business, which are considered usual and customary. The following table shows the estimated annual burden hours by CFR section and paragraph.
To comply with the public consultation process, we published a notice in the
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225–0007; telephone 303–445–2888.
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
The Pacific Northwest Region has no updates to report for this quarter.
The Mid-Pacific Region has no updates to report for this quarter.
26. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute Amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 20,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015.
27. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute Amendment No. 4 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to lease 13,933 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2015.
28. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 2,000 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2015.
The Upper Colorado Region has no updates to report for this quarter.
58. Canyon Ferry Unit, P–SMBP, Montana: Renewal of 20 various individual water service contracts for small amounts of irrigation and municipal water use.
59. Edwards Farms, Nebraska Bostwick, P–SMBP: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act Contract.
60. Larry TenBensel, Frenchman Cambridge, P–SMBP: Consideration of a long-term Warren Act Contract.
61. Dickinson-Heart River Mutual Aid Corporation; Dickinson Unit, Heart Division; P–SMBP; North Dakota: Consideration of amending the long-term irrigation water service contract to modify the acres irrigated.
22. Grey Reef Ranch, LLC, Kendrick Project, Wyoming: Renewal of a long-term Warren Act contract. Contract executed July 11, 2014.
35. Twin Lakes Dam, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project: Consideration of a contract action for repayment of SOD costs. Contract executed July 29, 2014.
36. John and Donna Vandenacre, Canyon Ferry Unit, P–SMBP, Montana. Consideration of a request to renew a long-term water service contract for up to 562.5 acre-feet of water from storage in Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Contract executed July 18, 2014.
49. Frenchman-Cambridge Division, P–SMP; Nebraska: Consideration of a Warren Act contract(s) with an individual landowner. Contract executed June 2014.
51. Nebraska-Bostwick and Frenchman-Cambridge ID; Bostwick and Frenchman-Cambridge Divisions; P–SMBP: Consideration of a temporary assignment of water from Nebraska-Bostwick ID to Frenchman-Cambridge ID. Contract executed June 26, 2014.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On October 14, 2014, the Department of Commerce published notice in the
Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
This investigation is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 201.10 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR § 201.10).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on October 23, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
The United States filed a complaint in this action on the same day that the consent decree was lodged with the Court. The defendants are Kiryas Joel Poultry Processing Plant, Inc. and Kiryas Joel Meat Market Corporation. The complaint relates to the defendants' poultry processing plant located at 7 Dinev Court, Monroe, New York, and their pretreatment facility, located at or near 50 Bakertown Road, Monroe, New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1317, and 1319, by: (1) Discharging spills and overflows of untreated wastewater from their property into storm drains, catch basins and storm sewers that discharge directly into navigable waters, in violation of Section 301 of the Act; (2) failing to obtain a stormwater permit pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, and discharging stormwater associated with industrial processes in violation of Section 301 of the Act; and (3) discharging untreated wastewater at volumes that passed-through or interfered with a nearby publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”), which itself discharges to navigable waters, in violation of Section 307 of the Act.
The consent decree requires the defendants to pay a $330,000 civil penalty and to perform injunctive relief, including enhanced monitoring of the plant's effluent and the submission of,
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Public comments timely received will be filed on the public court docket.
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $3.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
On October 31, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Investment Advice Participants and Beneficiaries,” 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 December 1, 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–EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (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 Investment Advice Participants and Beneficiaries information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 2550–408g–1. The regulatory provision contains the following information collection requirements: (1) A fiduciary adviser must furnish an initial disclosure that provides detailed information to participants about an advice arrangement before initially providing investment advice; (2) a fiduciary adviser must annually engage an independent auditor to audit the investment advice arrangement for compliance with the regulation; (3) if the fiduciary adviser provides the investment advice through the use of a computer model, then—before providing the advice—the fiduciary adviser must obtain a written certification from an eligible investment expert as to the computer model's compliance with certain standards (e.g., applies generally accepted investment theories, unbiased operation, and objective criteria) set forth in the regulation; and (4) a fiduciary adviser must maintain records with respect to the investment advice provided in reliance on the regulation necessary to determine whether the applicable requirements of the regulation have been satisfied. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 sections 408(b)(14) and 408(g) 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 October 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
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Section 408(a) Prohibited Transaction Provisions Exemption Application Procedure,” 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 November 28, 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–EBSA Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (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 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibited transaction provisions exemption application procedure specified by ERISA section 408(a).
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 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
• 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.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 18, 2014, applicable to workers of West Linn Paper Company, a subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA–W–85,417). The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The firm is engaged in the production of coated paper.
The investigation confirmed that worker separations at Columbia River Logistics, Inc. (CRL), including on-site leased workers from Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington, (TA–W–85,417) are attributable to increased imports of coated paper, as are worker separations at the West Linn, Oregon facility.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–85,417 and TA–W–85,417A is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of West Linn Paper Company, a subsidiary of Belgravia Investments, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Galt Foundation, West Linn, Oregon (TA–W–85,417) and Columbia River Logistics, Inc., including Resource Staffing, Vancouver, Washington (TA–W–85,417A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 8, 2013 through August 18, 2016, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 10, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 10, 2014.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 10, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 10, 2014.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of October 6, 2014 through October 10, 2014.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of October 6, 2014 through October 10, 2014. These determinations are available on the Department's Web site www.tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm under the searchable listing of determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free at 888–365–6822.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of September 29, 2014 through October 3, 2014.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a) and (b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a) and (b). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), the following three criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two ways:
(i) Sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm or subdivision.
(i) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
(II) the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III) there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(c), defines the terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on January 13, 2014 by a company official on behalf of workers of TRW Integrated Chassis Systems, LLC, North American Braking Division, a subsidiary of TRW Automotive, Saginaw, Michigan (TRW Integrated Chassis Systems). The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the production of rotor and knuckle components and brake corners. The workers are not separately identifiable by article produced. The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers from Adecco and DM Burr.
Workers of the subject firm are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under petition TA–W–71,662, which expired on September 30, 2011.
The petition states “At this time our customer . . . has decided to source our product to other suppliers”.
During the course of the investigation, information was collected from the workers' firm and its customers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift production of rotor and knuckle components and brake corners to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the investigation revealed subject firm, customer, and aggregate U.S. imports of articles like or directly competitive with the rotor and knuckle components and brake corners produced by TRW Integrated Chassis Systems have not increased during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that TRW Integrated Chassis Systems is not a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that TRW Integrated Chassis Systems that does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), based on an increase in imports from, or a shift in production to, Canada or Mexico.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that all workers of TRW Integrated Chassis Systems, LLC, North American Braking Division, a subsidiary of TRW Automotive, including on-site leased workers from Adecco and DM Burr, Saginaw, Michigan, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, amended.
This document was received for publication by the Office of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to advise interested persons that on Wednesday, November 12, 2014, OSHA, as a representative of the U.S Interagency GHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) Coordinating Group, will conduct a public meeting to discuss proposals in preparation for the 28th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS) to be held December 10 to 12, 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. OSHA, along with the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group, plans to consider the comments and information gathered at this public meeting when developing the U.S. Government positions for the UNSCEGHS meeting.
Also, on Wednesday, November 12, 2014, the Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will conduct a public meeting (See Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0117, Notice No. 14–12) to discuss proposals in preparation for the 46th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG) to be held December 1 to December 9, 2014, in Geneva, Switzerland.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014.
Both meetings will be held at the DOT Headquarters Conference Center, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Conference call-in and “live meeting” capability will be provided for both meetings. Specific information on call-in and live meeting access will be posted when available at:
Maureen Ruskin, Office of Chemical Hazards-Metals, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1950, email:
General topics on the agenda include:
• Review of Working papers
• Correspondence Group updates
• Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Update.
Information on the work of the UNSCEGHS including meeting agendas, reports, and documents from previous sessions, can be found on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Transport Division Web site located at the following web address:
Informal Papers submitted to the UNSCEGHS provide information for the Sub-committee and are used either as a mechanism to provide information to the Sub-committee or as the basis for future Working Papers. Informal Papers for the 28th session of the UNSCEGHS are located at:
This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), and Secretary's Order 1–2012 (77 FR 3912), (Jan. 25, 2012).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Institutional Committee. This committee reports to the NAC.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Local Time Thursday, November 20, 2014, 9:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Room1Q39 (Glennan Conference Room), Washington, DC 20024.
Mr. Todd Mullins, NAC Institutional Committee Executive Secretary, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, 202–358–3831.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll free access number 844–467–6272 or toll access number 720–259–6462, and then the numeric participant passcode: 180093 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx on November 19, the link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship and Permanent Residents (green card holders) can provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance by contacting Ms. Mary Dunn, via email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 2* of the generic design control document (DCD) and issuing License Amendment No. 18 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–93 and NPF–94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), and South Carolina Public Service Authority, (the licensee), for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. The amendment revises the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) by reclassifying portions of the five Tier 2* Human Factors & Validation (V&V) Technical Reports listed in the UFSAR Table 1.6–1 and Chapter 18, Subsection 18.11.2.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 2* information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–0441 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:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's P DR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Ravindra Joshi, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6191; e- mail:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of Title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession Number ML14252A153.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF–93 and NPF–94). These documents can be found in ADAMS under Accession Numbers ML14252A112 and ML14252A129, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF–93 and NPF–94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14252A069 and ML14252A072, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS Units 2 and 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated March 19, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated June 3, June 20, and July 9, 2014, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (licensee) requested from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) an exemption from the provisions of Title 10 of the
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession Number ML14252A153, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B, to allow deviations from the certified Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* information, as described in the licensee's request dated March 19, 2014, and supplemented by the letters dated June 3, June 20, and July 9, 2014. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 18, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession Number ML14252A153), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of October 8, 2014.
The request for the amendment was submitted by the letter dated March 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Number ML14079A599). The request for the exemption was submitted by the letter dated March 19, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Number ML14079A599). The licensee supplemented this request by letters dated June 3, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14155A210), June 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14174B135), and July 9, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Number ML14190B356). The proposed license amendment request revises the UFSAR by reclassifying portions of the five Tier 2* Human Factors V&V Technical Reports listed in UFSAR Table 1.6–1 and Chapter 18, Subsection 18.11.2.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to the facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on March 19, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated June 3, June 20, and July 9, 2014. The exemption and amendment were issued on October 8, 2014 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession Number ML14252A056).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company to withdraw its application dated March 26, 2014, supplemented on April 17, 2014, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License NPF–12. The proposed amendment would have revised the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Radiation Emergency Plan.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0108 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:
•
•
•
Shawn Williams, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1009, email:
The NRC has granted the request of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) to withdraw its application date March 26, 2014, supplemented on April 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14091A488 and ML14108A335, respectively), for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License NPF–12 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in Jenkinsville, SC.
The proposed amendment sought to revise the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Radiation Emergency Plan.
The NRC published a Biweekly Notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a renewed license to Exelon Generation Corporation, LLC (Exelon Generation), for its Materials License SNM–2505 for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel at the Calvert Cliffs independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located in Calvert County, Maryland. The renewed license authorizes operation of the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI in accordance with the provisions of the renewed license and its Technical Specifications (TS). The renewed license expires on November 30, 2052.
October 29, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2011–0085 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:
•
•
•
John Goshen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301–287–9250; email:
Based upon the application dated September 17, 2010, as supplemented February 10, June 28 and December 15, 2011; July 27, 2012; June 14, 2013; and April 24, and September 8, 2014, the U.S. NRC has issued a renewed license to Exelon Generation Corporation, LLC (Exelon Generation), for its Calvert Cliffs independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located in Calvert County, Maryland. The renewed license authorizes and requires operation of the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI in accordance with the provisions of the renewed license and its TS. The renewed license will expire on November 30, 2052. Exelon's application for a renewed license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and sets forth those findings in the renewed license. The agency afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing published in the
The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) for the renewal of the ISFSI license and concluded, based on that evaluation, the ISFSI will continue to meet the regulations in 10 CFR part 72. The NRC staff also prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact for the renewal of this license on June 8, 2012 (77 FR 34093). The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact, which was re-issued on October 23, 2014, (79 FR 63444), and includes the NRC staff's consideration of the impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel (as documented in NUREG–2157, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Fuel”) as an appendix to the EA, concluded that renewal of this ISFSI license will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Administrative Law Judge Program Office, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0248, OPM 1655,
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 28, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 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 the proposed information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Administrative Law Judge Office, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Juanita H. Love, ALJ Program Manager or sent via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
OPM 1655, Application for Senior Administrative Law Judge, and OPM 1655–A, Geographic Preference Statement for Senior Administrative Law Judge Applicant, are used by retired Administrative Law Judges seeking reemployment on a temporary and intermittent basis to complete hearings of one or more specified case(s) in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. OPM proposes to revise the information collection to more clearly state, in the form instructions, the licensure requirement for appointment as an ALJ; to eliminate an obsolete reference to the OF 612, Optional Application for Federal Employment, which OPM canceled on June 13, 2011, see 76 FR 31998; to reference a full list of the Privacy Act routine uses applicable to this information collection; to update geographic locations; and to make technical changes to citations and terminology.
On July 7, 2014, Automated Matching Systems Exchange, LLC (“AMSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an application seeking a limited volume exemption under Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”) from registration as a national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Exchange Act.
AMSE proposes to conduct business in reliance upon an exemption from registration as a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 5 of the Exchange Act.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to determine whether AMSE's exemption application should be granted or denied. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the exemption application. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the exemption application.
The Commission is providing notice of the grounds for denial under consideration. Section 5 of the Exchange Act allows the Commission to exempt an exchange from the requirements of exchange registration if “in the opinion of the Commission, by reason of the limited volume of transactions effected on such exchange, it is not practicable and not necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors to require such registration.”
As noted above, trades would occur on the separate systems of the individual members of AMSE. As described in the AMSE exemption application, it does not appear that the orders of the individual members of AMSE would interact with one another on any AMSE system, but rather on each distinct and separate system of AMSE's members. That is, it does not appear that any AMSE system would operate as an exchange by bringing together purchasers and sellers of securities. As a result, the Commission is concerned that AMSE's exemption application does not meet a key threshold requirement for being granted an exemption from exchange registration—namely, that the applicant actually be an “exchange” as defined under Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 3b–16 thereunder.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate at this time to issue this order to institute proceedings to determine whether to grant or deny the exemption application on the grounds that the applicant does not meet the definition of an “exchange” under Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 3b–16 thereunder.
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by November 19, 2014. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by December 3, 2014. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to a grant or denial of the exemption application which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
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.
By the Commission.
On July 24, 2014, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received eight comment letters on the proposal.
As further described in the Proposing Release, the MSRB states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish supervisory and compliance obligations of municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities. Proposed Rule G–44 utilizes a primarily principles-based approach to supervision and compliance in order to, among other things, accommodate the diversity of the municipal advisor population, including small and single-person entities. Proposed Rule G–44 is accompanied by proposed amendments to Rules G–8 and G–9 to establish fundamental books-and-records requirements for municipal advisors, including those related to their supervisory and compliance obligations.
In the Proposing Release, the MSRB stated that proposed Rule G–44 follows a widely accepted model in the securities industry consisting of a reasonably designed supervisory system complemented by the designation of a chief compliance officer (“CCO”). The proposed rule draws on aspects of existing supervision and compliance regulation under other regimes, including those for broker-dealers under rules of the MSRB and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and for investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
In summary, proposed Rule G–44 would require:
• A supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws;
• Written supervisory procedures;
• The designation of one or more municipal advisor principals to be responsible for supervision;
• Compliance processes reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws;
• An annual certification regarding those compliance processes;
• The designation of a CCO to administer those compliance processes; and
• At least annual reviews of compliance policies and supervisory procedures.
The proposed amendments to Rules G–8 and G–9, in summary, would require each municipal advisor to make and keep records of its:
• Written supervisory procedures;
• Designations of persons as responsible for supervision;
• Written compliance policies;
• Designations of persons as CCO;
• Reviews of compliance policies and supervisory procedures; and
• Annual certifications regarding compliance processes.
Paragraph (a) of proposed Rule G–44 is the core provision, which would require all municipal advisors to establish, implement and maintain a system to supervise their municipal advisory activities and those of their
Proposed Rule G–44(a)(ii) would require municipal advisors to designate one or more municipal advisor principals to be responsible for the supervision required by the proposed rule. Paragraph .03 of the Supplementary Material specifies the authority and specific qualifications required for municipal advisor principals designated as responsible for supervisory functions. According to the proposed rule, they must have the authority to carry out the supervision for which they are responsible, including the authority to implement the municipal advisor's established written supervisory procedures and take any other action necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. They also must have sufficient knowledge, experience and training to understand and effectively discharge their supervisory responsibilities.
Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule G–44 would require municipal advisors to implement processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and supervisory procedures. Proposed Rule G–44(b) would specify that the reviews of compliance policies and supervisory procedures must be conducted at least annually. Paragraph .04 of the Supplementary Material would provide, however, that municipal advisors should consider the need, in order to comply with all of the other requirements of the proposed rule, for more frequent reviews. The paragraph also would provide guidance on what, at a minimum, municipal advisors should consider during their reviews of compliance policies and supervisory procedures. These considerations include any compliance matters that arose since the previous review, any changes in municipal advisory activities and any changes in applicable law.
Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule G–44 would require municipal advisors to designate one individual as their CCO. Paragraph .05 of the Supplementary Material would explain the role of a CCO and the importance of that role. Specifically, a CCO is a primary advisor to the municipal advisor on its overall compliance scheme and the policies and procedures that the municipal advisor adopts in order to comply with applicable law. To fulfill this role, a CCO should have competence in the process of (1) gaining an understanding of the services and activities that need to be the subject of written compliance policies and written supervisory procedures; (2) identifying the applicable rules pertaining to those services and activities; (3) developing policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable law; and (4) developing programs to test compliance with the municipal advisor's policies and procedures.
Paragraph .06 of the Supplementary Material specifies that the CCO, and any compliance officers that report to the CCO, shall have responsibility for and perform the compliance functions required by the proposed rule. Paragraph .07 of the Supplementary Material provides that a municipal advisor's CCO may hold any other position within the municipal advisor, including senior management positions, so long as the person can discharge the duties of CCO in light of all of the responsibilities of any other positions. This guidance is especially relevant to small municipal advisors, including sole proprietorships and other one-person entities. It makes clear that a single individual may, for example, serve under appropriate circumstances as chief executive officer (“CEO”), supervisory principal and CCO. In addition, as discussed above, the CCO may be external to the firm, such as an outside consultant.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule G–44 would require municipal advisors to have their CEO(s) (or equivalent officer(s)) annually certify in writing that the municipal advisor has in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance
Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule G–44 would provide an exemption for banks engaging in municipal advisory activities in the exercise of bank fiduciary powers from Rule G–44 and the related books and records requirements if the municipal advisor certifies in writing annually that it is, with respect to those activities, subject to federal supervisory and compliance obligations and books and record requirements that are substantially equivalent to the supervisory and compliance obligations in Rule G–44 and the books and records requirements of Rule G–8(h)(v)(A)–(E). The ability to so certify and utilize this exemption is provided because it is unnecessary for a municipal advisor to comply with each other provision of proposed Rule G–44 if it is subject to substantially equivalent supervisory and compliance obligations as part of the extensive federal regulatory regime to which banks are already subject.
Paragraph (f) of proposed Rule G–44 would provide a definition of the term “municipal advisor” for purposes of the rule as a person that is registered or required to be registered as a municipal advisor under Section 15B of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder.
The proposed amendments to Rules G–8
The proposed amendments to Rule G–9 would require each municipal advisor to preserve the books and records described in Rule G–8(h), including records related to the municipal advisor's supervisory and compliance obligations, for a period of not less than five years. This five-year preservation requirement would be consistent with the requirement of Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1–8 (on books and records to be made and maintained by municipal advisors).
The proposed amendments to existing Rule G–9(e) would expressly provide that municipal advisors may retain records using electronic storage media or by other similar medium of record retention, subject to the retrieval and reproduction requirements of Rule G–9. The allowance for this means of compliance would be made generally applicable, so as to expressly accommodate the use of electronic storage media by dealers as well as municipal advisors.
Proposed Rule G–9(i) would require compliance with Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1–8(b)(2) and (c),
As noted previously, the Commission received eight comment letters on the proposed rule change and a response letter from the MSRB.
BDA commented that proposed Rule G–44 provides too much flexibility for small firms by allowing them to determine and make accommodations for themselves simply because of their size, and that those accommodations should be circumscribed.
Sanchez stated that compliance with proposed Rule G–44(a) and (b), paragraph .04 of the Supplementary Material and the associated recordkeeping requirements should be deemed a sufficient supervisory system for municipal advisors with a single associated person.
In response to comments, the MSRB acknowledged that proposed Rule G–44 contains standards that may vary based on firm size and that the MSRB deliberately drafted the rule to give firms flexibility to tailor their supervisory systems accordingly, striking an appropriate balance between burdens on, and flexibility for, small municipal advisors.
With respect to paragraph .02 of the Supplementary Material, the MSRB believes this provision is important to ensuring all municipal advisors establish meaningful procedures that will satisfy the minimum standard established by proposed Rule G–44.
Several comment letters addressed the proposed annual certification requirement in proposed Rule G–44. ICI supports the proposed annual certification requirement as drafted because it is consistent with the requirements imposed on FINRA members pursuant to FINRA Rule 3130(b).
Sanchez commented that the regulatory purpose of the annual certification requirement as to compliance processes in proposed Rule G–44(d) is unclear because the associated recordkeeping requirements essentially already require the equivalent of an annual certification.
In response to the comments, the MSRB stated that the certification requirement would result in the creation, maintenance and modification of robust written supervisory procedures that would promote compliance with all applicable rules.
In response to Sanchez's comments, the MSRB stated that requiring each firm's chief executive officer (or equivalent officer) to provide an annual certification would help ensure that compliance processes are given sufficient attention at the highest levels of management and would help promote compliance, without adding a significant burden.
Sanchez suggested replacing the proposed timing standard for amending written supervisory procedures and communicating such amendments to associated persons (
The MSRB responded that the provision requiring prompt amendments of written supervisory procedures and prompt communication of such amendments to associated persons is intended to harmonize proposed Rule G–44 with FINRA's rule on the maintenance of supervisory procedures in its consolidated supervision rule.
BDA commented that the language in paragraph .05 of the Supplementary Material to proposed Rule G–44, providing that a municipal advisor retains the ultimate responsibility for its compliance obligations, whether the CCO is outsourced or not, should be incorporated into the rule text.
The MSRB responded that it is not relocating the provision into the rule text because the Supplementary Material would be part of new Rule G–44, if approved, and the provision's location there is intended to improve the readability of the rule and does not affect the weight, significance or enforceability of the provision.
The ABA praised the MSRB's exemption in the proposed Rule G–44(e) for banks that certify they are subject to federal supervisory and compliance obligations and books and records requirements that are substantially equivalent to the supervisory and compliance obligations of proposed Rule G–44 and the books and records requirements of Rule G–8(h)(v)(A)–(E), and the ABA requested that a similar exemption be available for state-chartered trust companies.
The MSRB responded that it would not extend the exemption of proposed Rule G–44 to bank trust departments or trust companies that are not federally regulated.
SIFMA supports the proposed amendments to Rules G–8 and G–9 which it believes are reasonable and in line with existing MSRB recordkeeping and record retention requirements.
In response to comments, the MSRB stated there is a six-year retention period for records relating to designations of persons responsible for supervision and as CCO to be consistent with the current provisions of Rule G–9 for records of similar designations by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers.
Anonymous Attorney requested clarification on three issues: (1) Whether a municipal advisor and investment advisor (“MA/IA”) firm's compliance
The MSRB responded that it used a primarily principles-based approach to proposed Rule G–44 to afford municipal advisors flexibility in determining the lowest cost means to meet regulatory objectives.
SIFMA requested no less than six months as an implementation period for proposed Rule G–44.
The proposed rule sets forth an implementation period of six months following the Commission's approval of the proposal except for proposed Rule G–44(d) which municipal advisors would be required to implement eighteen months after the Commission approval date. The MSRB responded that it does not intend to delay implementation of the proposed Rule G–44 until all municipal advisor rules have been approved by the SEC. Municipal advisors are currently subject to applicable federal securities laws and the MSRB believes it is important for firms to have a supervisory system and compliance processes in place to foster compliance with those laws and that can be updated as new rules are adopted.
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, as well as the eight comment letters received and the MSRB's response. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2), 15B(b)(2)(A)(i) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act provides that MSRB shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes of that title with respect to transactions in municipal securities effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers and advice provided to or on behalf of municipal entities or obligated persons by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers.
The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv), in that it does not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons.
In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act which provides that the MSRB's rules shall prescribe records to be made and kept by municipal advisors and the
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
The Commission believes the proposed rule takes into account competitive concerns that could arise as a result of the costs associated with the supervision and compliance requirements that could lead some municipal advisors to exit the market, curtail their activities or consolidate with other firms. By utilizing a primarily principles-based approach to supervision and compliance, the proposed rule is designed to provide flexibility to small municipal advisor firms, including those with only one associated person, allowing municipal advisors to tailor their supervisory procedures to, among other things, their size, particular business model and structure. Moreover, the Commission continues to believe “that the market for municipal advisory services is likely to remain competitive despite the potential exit of municipal advisors, consolidation of municipal advisors, or lack of new entrants into the market.”
The Commission believes that the effect of the proposed rule is beneficial and that the changes will enhance investor confidence by promoting robust supervisory policies and procedures, programs and controls that can be flexibly applied to account for the diversity of the municipal advisor population, including small municipal advisors and sole proprietorships.
As noted above, the Commission received eight comment letters on the filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its responses and through proposed changes in Amendment No. 1, has addressed commenters' concerns.
For the reasons noted above, including those discussed in the MSRB Response Letter and MSRB Amendment Letter, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to 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.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice in the
The MSRB has proposed the revisions included in item (i) of the previous paragraph to expand the applicability of the provision, requiring a municipal advisor's written supervisory procedures to address how its supervision is adequate even without having separate supervisors, to account for instances of self-supervision that may occur in firms that are not sole proprietorships. The MSRB believes the revision more properly identifies and captures the subset of municipal advisors for which the written supervisory procedures must address the additional matter. The MSRB is proposing the two technical revisions in items (ii) and (iii) in the previous
The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 does not alter the substance of the original proposed rule change and are consistent with the purpose of the original proposed rule change and do not raise significant new issues. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 11, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, including the matters raised in the comment letter to the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 10, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, including the matters raised in the comment letter to the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 11.9 and 11.13 to modify the routing strategies made available through the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”) received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”, and together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
The specific proposal set forth in more detail below would amend Rules 11.9 and 11.13, which describe the Exchange's routing options made available by the Exchange. Specifically, the changes to Rule 11.9 would relocate certain routing strategies identified as order types to Rule 11.13. The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate an obsolete routing strategy that is currently listed as an order type. Finally, the Exchange proposes to add to Rule 11.13 to offer many of the same routing strategies offered by EDGA and EDGX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on the rules of EDGA and EDGX and is different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to re-locate two routing strategies from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13. Rule 11.9 generally contains order types and order type modifiers whereas Rule 11.13 describes routing strategies offered by the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to relocate Destination Specific Orders and Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders (“Directed ISOs”) from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13 because both orders are routing strategies rather than order types or order type modifiers. The Exchange notes that Rule 11.13 has always reflected that such descriptions are routing strategies by containing a cross-reference to such strategies in Rule 11.13(a)(3). The Exchange is not proposing to modify the description or operation of either Destination Specific Orders or Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders. The Exchange notes that it has proposed minor changes to the wording of both Destination Specific Orders and Directed ISOs in order to conform such routing strategies with the other strategies described in Rule 11.13(a)(3).
The Exchange also proposes to delete from Rule 11.9 an obsolete routing strategy, the Modified Destination Specific Order, which is currently set forth in Rule 11.9(c)(13). Modified Destination Specified Orders are market or limit orders that instruct the System
The Exchange proposes to add several new routing strategies based on routing strategies offered by EDGA and/or EDGX, as set forth below.
The Exchange currently offers various routing strategies under which an order checks the System for available shares if so instructed by the entering User and then is sent to destinations on the applicable System routing table.
The Exchange notes that the RTI option coupled with either ROUT or ROUX is similar to the Parallel D routing strategy described in current Rule 11.13(a)(3)(B) in that it routes to multiple destinations simultaneously but at a single price level whereas the RTF option coupled with either ROUT or ROUX is similar to the Parallel 2D routing strategy described in current Rule 11.13(a)(3)(C). The only distinction between Parallel D and Parallel 2D on one hand and ROUT or ROUX coupled with RTI or RTF on the other is that the existence of ROUT and ROUX plus either RTI or RTF will provide additional flexibility by allowing the Exchange to offer two System routing tables that can be paired with the applicable routing methodology. In order to allow a gradual migration from Parallel D and Parallel 2D to the proposed routing strategies (ROUT or ROUX plus RTI or RTF) the Exchange is not proposing to eliminate such routing strategies upon effectiveness of this proposal. Instead, the Exchange proposes to continue to accept orders designated for Parallel D and Parallel 2D routing and will eventually retire such routing strategies and remove reference to the routing strategies from Exchange rules once all affected Users have been migrated away from Parallel D and Parallel 2D to the new routing strategies. Further, adding the ROUT and ROUX routing strategies plus the RTI and RTF options as proposed will ensure
The Exchange also proposes to add the Post to Away routing option, which will route the remainder of a routed order to and posts such order on the order book of a destination on the System routing table as specified by the User. The Post to Away routing option is an alternative to either cancelling a routed order back to a User or posting such order to the BATS Book to the extent an order is not completely filled through the routing process. The Post to Away routing option can be combined with the following routing strategies (each of which is separately described in this filing): ROUT, ROUX, ROUZ, INET, RDOT, RDOX and ROLF.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt four additional routing strategies under which an order checks the System for available shares and is sent to a specified destination. Although the Exchange currently has similar order routing options through the Destination Specific routing option, the Exchange is proposing certain additional functionality with the proposed routing strategies to match functionality offered by EDGA and EDGX. The Exchange also believes that retaining the same names for such routing options as are utilized by EDGA and EDGX will help to promote the integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. These proposed routing strategies that are focused on particular destinations and/or particular functionality offered by such destinations are set forth below:
• INET. The Exchange proposes to add the INET routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to Nasdaq. If shares remain unexecuted after routing through the INET routing option, they will be posted on the Nasdaq book, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• RDOT. The Exchange proposes to add the RDOT routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be sent to NYSE and can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be posted to the NYSE, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• RDOX. The Exchange proposes to add the RDOX option under which an order will check the System for available shares, then will be sent to the NYSE and can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be posted on the NYSE book, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• ROLF. The Exchange proposes to add the ROLF routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to LavaFlow ECN. If shares remain unexecuted after routing they will be cancelled, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
The Exchange also proposes to add the ROOC routing option for orders that the entering User wishes to designate for participation in the opening, re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process of a primary listing market (NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE MKT, or NYSE Arca) if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market. If shares remain unexecuted after attempting to execute in the opening, re-opening, or closing process, they will be posted to the BATS Book, executed, or routed to destinations on the System routing table.
In addition to the changes proposed above, the Exchange also proposes to re-number various existing paragraphs of Rule 11.13(a)(3) in connection with the addition of the proposed routing strategies. The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in Rule 11.13(a)(3)(I), which describes SWP orders, by referencing Rule 11.18(e) instead of Rule 11.8(e) with respect to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
As noted above, the proposed rule changes to add functionality are intended to add certain system functionality currently offered by EDGA and EDGX in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BYX, EDGA and/or EDGX. The proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to functionality that may result in the efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users. As explained elsewhere in this proposal, all of the proposed routing options are similar to routing strategies on other market centers, including EDGA and EDGX.
The Exchange also believes that re-locating certain routing options from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest pursuant to the Act because such changes will enable those reviewing the Exchange's rules to more clearly understand such rules.
Finally, the Exchange believes that elimination of the Modified Destination Specific Order is consistent with the Act because such routing strategy is not currently offered by the Exchange because there are no currently approved destinations for such strategy. Thus, eliminating reference to such strategy will avoid confusion by market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange provides routing services in a highly competitive market in which participants may avail themselves of a wide variety of routing options offered by self-regulatory organizations, alternative trading systems, other broker-dealers, market participants' own proprietary routing systems, and service bureaus. In such an environment, system enhancements such as the changes proposed in this rule filing do not burden competition, because they can succeed in attracting order flow to the Exchange only if they offer investors higher quality and better value than services offered by others. The Exchange reiterates that the proposed rule change
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fees applicable to securities listed on the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rule 14.13. Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules applicable to the qualification, listing, and delisting of companies on the Exchange,
Currently, Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) provides that the annual fee for an ETP that is not participating in the CLP Program is charged quarterly on a tiered basis based on the ETP's consolidated average daily volume (the “CADV”), as defined below, during the quarter preceding the billing date. Specifically, the Exchange charges issuers of ETPs on a quarterly basis as follows:
As mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate all annual fees for ETPs that are not participating in the CLP Program, which includes the fees associated with each of the CADV tiers above. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that issuers of each class of securities that is a domestic or foreign issue listed on the Exchange as an ETP that is not currently participating in the CLP Program will pay no annual fee to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange is proposing to eliminate all annual listing fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange, except for those ETPs that are participating in the CLP Program, which will significantly reduce listing fees for most new issuers and transfer listings in ETPs (with the exception of ETPs with a CADV greater than 400,000 for which there already was no annual listing fee), which the Exchange believes is equitable, reasonable, and non-discriminatory because the annual fee for listings will be applied equally to all ETPs newly listed on the Exchange. Further, there are currently no ETPs listed on the Exchange that are receiving the pricing for having a CADV of greater than 400,000. The Exchange also believes that continuing to charge $35,000 annually for ETPs that continue to participate in the CLP Program is equitable and non-discriminatory because the costs associated with operating the CLP Program are significantly higher than the anticipated costs associated with the listing of ETPs on the Exchange that are not participating in the CLP Program and are generally designed to at least in part offset the costs to the Exchange to operate the CLP Program. Further, ETPs participating in the CLP Program may opt out of the CLP Program at any time in order to be eligible for having no annual listing fees.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that its proposed elimination of annual fees for ETPs that are not participating in the CLP Program is a reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory allocation of fees to issuers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. With respect to the proposed new pricing for the listing of ETPs, the Exchange does not believe that the changes burden competition, but instead, enhance competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange's listings program by allowing the
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 7, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On April 7, 2014, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
This Order disapproves the proposed rule change.
The Exchange proposes: (1) To adopt new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 to permit the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Managed Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company; and (2) to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Funds under proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900.
The Exchange's proposal defines the term “Managed Portfolio Share” as a security that (a) is issued by a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies; (b) is issued in any number of shares for a cash amount equal to the next determined net asset value (“NAV”); (c) may be redeemed for cash by any Retail Investor (as defined below) in any size less than a Redemption Unit (as defined below) for a cash amount equal to the next determined NAV; and (d) when aggregated in a number of shares equal to a Redemption Unit or multiples thereof, may be redeemed by or through an Authorized Participant,
While funds issuing Managed Portfolio Shares would be actively managed and, to that extent, would be similar to Managed Fund Shares (which are actively managed funds listed and traded under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600), Managed Portfolio Shares differ from Managed Fund Shares in the following significant respects.
• In contrast to Managed Fund Shares, for which a “Disclosed Portfolio” is required to be disseminated at least once daily,
• In connection with the redemption of shares in Redemption Unit
• Investors, including “Retail Investors,”
• As with traditional open-end investment companies, Retail Investors would be able to redeem shares for cash directly from a fund on any day and in any size less than a Redemption Unit at the fund's NAV.
For each series of Managed Portfolio Shares, an estimated value, defined in the proposed rules as the “Portfolio Indicative Value” (“PIV”), that reflects an estimated intraday value of a fund's portfolio, based on the last market price or last sale price, would be disseminated. The PIV would be based upon all of a Fund's holdings as of the close of the prior business day and would be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (normally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time).
The Exchange's proposal provides that the Exchange would file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act before listing and trading any additional series of Managed Portfolio Shares.
The portfolio for each Fund would consist primarily of stocks in the Russell 3000 Index (which consists of stocks included in the Russell 1000 Index and the Russell 2000 Index) and shares issued by other exchange-traded funds (“ETFs) that invest primarily in shares of issuers in the Russell 3000 Index. The
Each Fund would target an overall net equity market exposure of between 70% and 130% of the Fund's assets. Each Fund would purchase securities that its portfolio managers believed to be undervalued and would sell short securities that the portfolio managers believed to be overvalued. Under normal market conditions,
As noted above, the Commission received two letters from the same commenter opposing the proposed rule change,
The opposing commenter predicts that, compared to most existing ETFs, the Shares would probably trade with significantly wider bid-ask spreads, with more variable premiums and discounts, or with both, because of what the opposing commenter characterizes as the unreliability of the Funds' proposed method for ensuring secondary market trading efficiency.
The opposing commenter argues that there is no support for the Exchange's contention that existing ETFs holding portfolios of foreign securities, such as index-based ETFs holding Asian stocks, have demonstrated efficient pricing characteristics even though they do not provide opportunities for riskless arbitrage transactions during much of the trading day.
Another commenter predicts that trading spreads in Managed Portfolio Shares would not be as “tight” as trading spreads in the SPY or QQQ (where futures, options, and equity portfolios can be used as a pure hedge), but that a frequent update of the intraday indicative value would allow market maker spreads to be reasonable.
The Exchange responds to the opposing commenter that, as set forth in the Notice, market makers have indicated that the available information regarding the Shares would be sufficient for arbitrage and hedging purposes.
Regarding the Exchange's assertion that market makers will be able to make efficient and liquid markets priced near the PIV as long as an accurate PIV is disseminated every 15 seconds and market makers have knowledge of a fund's means of achieving its investment objective, the opposing commenter states that, for a number of reasons, the dissemination of a PIV by the Funds is likely to prove ineffective in ensuring alignment of secondary market prices for the Shares with the values of the underlying portfolios.
The opposing commenter predicts that frequent PIV errors would cause “erroneous share trades” to be executed.
The Exchange agrees with the opposing commenter that an accurate PIV would be essential for trading in the Shares, but asserts that the opposing commenter offers no support for the assertion that the PIV would be unreliable.
The Exchange states that, because it has no reason to believe that the PIVs would be inherently unreliable, it does not propose to institute any additional monitoring programs.
In his second comment letter,
The opposing commenter asserts that disseminated PIVs for ETFs with transparent portfolios have essentially no relevance to secondary market trading efficiency and limited overall utility for investors.
The opposing commenter also questions whether the terms “efficient and liquid markets” and “priced near the PIV” (used by the cited LMMs) are properly defined or are suitable standards for open-end funds issuing redeemable securities.
The opposing commenter recommends that the Commission ask the Exchange to quantify the range of expected bid-ask spreads and premiums/discounts at which LMMs have indicated they expect the Shares to trade and to compare these expectations to accurate measures of benchmark index ETF trading performance.
The opposing commenter raises a number of objections to the Funds' proposed use of a blind trust to effect redemption transactions by Authorized Participants. He predicts that the proposed redemption arrangements would introduce additional costs and uncertainties for Authorized Participants for the following reasons:
• The Funds' custodian would have a monopoly position as the sole eligible provider of trustee services for the blind trust;
• the Funds' adviser, rather than the Authorized Participant, would negotiate the fees paid to the trustee;
• in contrast to existing ETFs, no Authorized Participant would have the potential ability to use its market knowledge and market position to enhance arbitrage profits (or offset arbitrage costs) by managing sales of the distributed securities to minimize market impact or to realize prices above the market close; and
• the Funds' custodian, who acts for the Authorized Participant in the sale of distributed securities, would have no apparent incentive to sell distributed securities with low market impact or at prices above the close and would experience little or no downside from doing the opposite.
The opposing commenter also asserts that redeeming Authorized Participants would be exposed to potential costs and risks associated with not being able to control disposition of significantly more concentrated redemption proceeds, and the opposing commenter argues that these extra costs and risks associated with the blind trust arrangement would be passed through to shareholders transacting in the secondary market, reflected as wider bid-ask spreads, more volatile premiums and discounts for the Shares, or both.
In addition, the opposing commenter argues that the Commission should not grant the issuer's pending request for exemptive relief under the 1940 Act to maintain early Order Cut-Off Times for Fund redemptions, which are intended to facilitate the timely sale of distributed securities by the blind trusts that receive the proceeds of Authorized Participant redemptions and to facilitate the efficient processing of redemptions by retail investors through the Retail Redemption Facility.
In response, the Exchange argues that the opposing commenter's arguments regarding cost considerations are irrelevant under the Exchange Act
The opposing commenter argues, in response, that mandatory early Order Cut-Off Times for direct purchases and redemptions of Shares, while raising issues under the 1940 Act, also raise Exchange Act issues due to the potential impact on secondary market trading. Specifically, the opposing commenter asks: (1) If Authorized Participants cannot enter orders to purchase and redeem Shares after a designated cut-off time, how would this affect market trading later in the session; and (2) if market makers cannot transact with the Fund to offload long and short positions in Shares accumulated after the cut off time, how could the Funds' proposed arbitrage mechanism function effectively?
In connection with the unique redemption features of the Funds, the opposing commenter further asserts that there is a “significant risk” that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) would deny the purported tax benefits of the Funds' distinctive in-kind redemption program.
In response, the Exchange argues that the opposing commenter's arguments regarding the tax treatment of in-kind distributions through the blind trust are not relevant under the Exchange Act.
The opposing commenter's second letter restates his belief that the tax treatment of the Funds' in-kind redemptions is relevant and again urges the Commission to condition any approval of the proposed rule change on the issuer receiving a Private Letter Ruling from the IRS affirming the claimed tax treatment of the Funds' in-kind redemptions.
The opposing commenter posits that a principal purpose of including direct Share purchases and the Retail Redemption Facility in the proposal is to provide comfort to the Commission and market participants that investors
The opposing commenter asserts that the Exchange's statements that “investors may choose to purchase Shares directly from a Fund if they want to assure that they would not purchase Shares at a premium” and that “Retail Investors may decide to redeem their Shares for cash if they want to make sure they receive the NAV and do not want to risk selling their Shares in the secondary market at a discount” are valid only to the extent that a Fund's direct purchase and redemption options apply to a particular investor, are available at the particular time of day when the investor seeks to buy or sell Shares, are not negated by disproportionate fees, and are backed by investor information and broker-dealer systems adequate to support informed decision-making and effective execution of direct transactions in Shares.
The opposing commenter recommends that the Funds should be required to extend eligibility for the Retail Redemption Facility to all shareholders and that the Order Cut-Off Times for direct purchases of shares and redemptions under the Retail Redemption Facility be established as of the close of the Exchange's regular trading session.
In response, the Exchange does not address the individual objections raised by the opposing commenter, but instead asserts that the process proposed in the Notice is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Exchange Act.
The opposing commenter alleges that the prospectus contains a number of material misstatements and omissions relating to in-kind redemptions and direct purchases and redemptions.
With respect to improved disclosures and availability of information, the opposing commenter states that, given the importance of the PIV to the decision-making process of current and prospective Fund investors, all Fund investors should have ongoing access to current PIV values.
Further, the opposing commenter asserts that, given the fundamental differences in how the Shares may be bought or sold, compared to other ETFs, it is not appropriate for the Funds to be advertised or marketed as ETFs.
In response, the Exchange states that such real-time Web site disclosure of an indicative value is not required of other ETFs.
Responding to the Exchange's assertion that the Funds should not be required to provide investors with free public access to real-time PIVs and other Fund trading information because these requirements do not apply to existing ETFs, the opposing commenter asserts that the Funds would differ from all existing ETFs in three respects for which the suggested requirements for additional PIV and other Fund trading information disclosures are highly relevant: (a) The Funds would offer shareholders two distinct pathways for buying and selling Shares (i.e., direct transactions and secondary market trades) and therefore should be obligated to give investors sufficient information about Share trading conditions to help them determine how best to buy and sell Shares; (b) the arbitrage mechanism intended to support efficient secondary market trading in Shares is untested and is likely to be less reliable than the mechanism supporting efficient trading in existing ETFs, meaning that investors in the Funds should appropriately pay more attention to Share trading costs and must have access to enhanced trading information to make that possible; and (c) the arbitrage mechanism underlying trading in Shares is uniquely reliant upon PIVs, with the result that a level playing field among market participants can only be achieved if all Fund investors have equal access to this critical Fund data.
The opposing commenter asserts that the Funds should: (a) Be required to limit their equity investments to U.S.-exchange-listed stocks with market caps of $5 billion or greater (consistent with the general understanding of large- and medium-cap stocks, a universe of about 700 stocks currently); (b) not be permitted to invest in illiquid assets or debt instruments of non-U.S. issuers; and (c) not be permitted to employ investment leverage or hold short positions.
In response, the Exchange argues that the opposing commenter's recommendation to curtail the permitted investments of the Funds is not relevant under the Exchange Act.
In his second letter, the opposing commenter argues that the nature of the Funds' holdings is highly relevant because the reliability of a Fund's PIVs would depend on the availability, timeliness, and accuracy of intraday valuations for the Fund's underlying holdings, which in turn would vary significantly by holdings type.
The opposing commenter notes that the Exchange would permit trading in the Shares between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., but that the PIV would only be disseminated during the Core Trading Session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
In response, the Exchange states that: (a) Its surveillance procedures are operative during all trading sessions and are adequate to monitor trading in the Shares; (b) that it has no reason to discount the assertions of market makers regarding their ability to make efficient markets during all trading sessions; and (c) it would ensure that the information bulletin required by the Exchange's listing standards would adequately address the special characteristics and risks associated with trading in the Shares.
In response, the opposing commenter questions: (a) How a market maker would have any idea whether Shares were trading at a premium or a discount during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions, if PIVs are not being disseminated; and (b) how a market maker would have a basis to construct hedge positions against Share inventory accumulated during these sessions.
The opposing commenter argues that the lack of portfolio transparency would favor market makers and other professional traders over other market participants, such as investors, and the opposing commenter concludes that this disparate treatment is contrary to the principle that all participants should be on an equal footing with respect to knowledge of a fund's holdings.
The Exchange states that the following information would be publicly available to market professionals and retail investors alike: a PIV, disseminated every 15 seconds; an NAV, disseminated daily after the close; and the national best bid and offer and last trade for the Shares, disseminated in real-time through the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape.
The opposing commenter counters that all investors would not have equal access to Share trading information unless, as he recommends, the Commission conditions approval of the proposal on the Funds providing free access to PIVs on a public Web site and PIVs being available to the general public as soon as they are available to any party.
One commenter supports the proposed rule change, asserting that investors would have access for the first time to many different types of active management strategies.
The Exchange asserts that, assuming investor protection concerns are adequately addressed, investors and the marketplace can only benefit from listing and trading of a variety of products with different structures, positing that competitive forces would ultimately decide the success or failure of such initiatives.
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to that organization.
After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
Before an ETF can list and trade on a national securities exchange, the ETF must have exemptive relief under the 1940 Act, and a national securities exchange must have effective rules in place to list and trade the ETF.
The purpose of the Exchange's proposed rule change is to allow the listing and trading of the proposed Funds and future Funds of the same type. The Commission does not believe that approving this proposed rule change would be consistent with the requirement under the Exchange Act that an exchange's rules be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because the Commission has stated its intention to deny the Funds exemptive relief under the 1940 Act and because denying this exemptive relief would mean that the Funds could not legally operate.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
By the Commission.
On April 7, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the issues raised in connection with the proposed rule change. Specifically, as the Commission noted in the Order Instituting Proceedings, the proposed rule change raises issues such as whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the statutory definition of the term “facility” and the statutory requirements applicable to national securities exchanges.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On April 17, 2014, the Exchange filed a proposal to adopt rules to create a Lead Market Maker Program (the “Program”) on an immediately effective basis.
The Program provides enhanced rebates to market makers registered with the Exchange (“Market Makers”)
The Exchange proposes to modify its pricing for orders that add displayed liquidity in LMM Securities entered by LMMs that meet the Minimum Performance Standards (a “Qualified LMM”). The Exchange is proposing to eliminate its existing tiered rebate structure that is based on the CADV of the LMM Security.
The Exchange is not proposing to make any other changes to its existing price structure. The Exchange is also not proposing to terminate operation of the Program. Thus, while LMMs will not receive enhanced rebates in BATS-listed ETPs, Market Makers may continue to register as LMMs in such BATS-listed ETPs in accordance with BATS Rule 11.8(e).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make several non-substantive changes to the fee schedule, including removal of the text of footnote 3, which defines the term CADV, and reserving the footnote in order to maintain the current numbering of footnotes in the fee schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to eliminate LMM rebates is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in standard fees and rebates being applied equally to all Members of the Exchange. Further, the potential decrease in rebates to LMMs in LMM Securities is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because there are not currently any LMM Securities listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal, especially when considered in conjunction with a separate proposal filed today that will eliminate annual listing fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange,
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the fee schedule provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Further, the Exchange believes that, combined with the amendment to eliminate annual listing fees, [sic] will enhance the Exchange's ability to compete as a listing venue in ETPs by allowing the Exchange to provide listing services without annual fees that it would otherwise not be able to provide if it continued to offer enhanced rebates. Accordingly, by allowing the Exchange to better compete as a listing venue, the Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance the Exchange's program for listing securities on the Exchange, which will, in turn, provide issuers with another option for raising capital in the public markets, thereby promoting the principles discussed in Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the clarifying change that deletes the text of footnote 3 and designates it as being reserved is reasonable as it will help to avoid confusion for those that review the Exchange's fee schedule. The Exchange notes that this proposed change is not designed to amend any fee or rebate, nor alter the manner in which it assesses fees or calculates rebates. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is intended to make the fee schedule clearer and less confusing for investors and eliminate potential investor confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange does not believe that the changes burden competition, but instead, enhance competition, as they are made in conjunction with the elimination of annual fees for ETPs listed on the Exchange,
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change that would adopt new BX Rule 4780 to establish a Retail Price Improvement (“RPI”) Program (the “Program” or “proposed rule change”) to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange while also providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow.
The Exchange has designated December 1, 2014 as the date the proposed rule change becomes effective.
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing a one-year pilot program that would add new BX Rule 4780 to establish an RPI Program to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchange while also providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions under proposed BX Rule 4780. First, the term “Retail Member Organization” (or “RMO”) would be defined as a Member (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders.
Second, the term “Retail Order” would be defined as an agency order, or riskless principal order that satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03, that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price (except in the case of a market order being changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. The criteria set forth in FINRA Rule 5320.03 adds additional precision to the definition of “Retail Order” by clarifying that an RMO may enter Retail Orders on a riskless principal basis, provided that (i) the entry of such riskless principal orders meet the requirements of FINRA Rule 5320.03, including that the RMO maintains supervisory systems to reconstruct, in a time‐sequenced manner, all Retail Orders that are entered on a riskless principal basis; and (ii) the RMO submits a report, contemporaneously with the execution of the facilitated order, that identifies the trade as riskless principal.
The term “Retail Price Improvement Order” or “RPI Order” or collectively “RPI interest” would be defined as non-displayed liquidity on the Exchange that is priced more aggressively than the Protected NBBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as an RPI Order in a
Members and RMOs may enter odd lots, round lots or mixed lots as RPI Orders and as Retail Orders respectively. As discussed below, RPI Orders will be ranked and allocated according to price and time of entry into the System consistent with BX Rule 4757 and therefore without regard to whether the size entered is an odd lot, round lot or mixed lot amount. Similarly, Retail Orders will interact with RPI Orders and other price-improving orders available on the Exchange (
RPI Orders would interact with Retail Orders as follows. Assume a Member enters RPI sell interest with an offset of $0.001 and a floor of $10.10 while the Protected NBO is $10.11. The RPI Order could interact with an incoming buy Retail Order at $10.109. If, however, the Protected NBO was $10.10, the RPI Order could not interact with the Retail Order because the price required to deliver the minimum $0.001 price improvement ($10.099) would violate the Member's floor of $10.10. If a Member otherwise enters an offset greater than the minimum required price improvement and the offset would produce a price that would violate the Member's floor, the offset would be applied only to the extent that it respects the Member's floor. By way of illustration, assume RPI buy interest is entered with an offset of $0.005 and a ceiling of $10.112 while the Protected NBBO is at $10.11. The RPI Order could interact with an incoming sell Retail Order at $10.112, because it would produce the required price improvement without violating the Member's ceiling, but it could not interact above the $10.112 ceiling. Finally, if a Member enters an RPI Order without an offset (
Under proposed BX Rule 4780(b), any Member could qualify as an RMO if it conducts a retail business or handles retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. Any Member that wishes to obtain RMO status would be required to submit: (i) An application form; (ii) supporting documentation sufficient to demonstrate the retail nature and characteristics of the applicant's order flow
An RMO would be required to have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such written policies and procedures must require the Member to (i) exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements of this rule, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the applicable requirements. If the RMO represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer customer, the RMO's supervisory procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The RMO must (i) obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to the Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as Retail
If the Exchange disapproves the application, the Exchange would provide a written notice to the Member. The disapproved applicant could appeal the disapproval by the Exchange as provided in proposed BX Rule 4780(d), and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the disapproval notice is issued by the Exchange. An RMO also could voluntarily withdraw from such status at any time by giving written notice to the Exchange.
Proposed BX Rule 4780(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by Retail Order requirements. If an RMO designates orders submitted to the Exchange as Retail Orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole discretion, that those orders fail to meet any of the requirements of Retail Orders, the Exchange may disqualify a Member from its status as an RMO. When disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange would provide a written disqualification notice to the Member. A disqualified RMO could appeal the disqualification as provided in proposed BX Rule 4780(d) and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the disqualification notice is issued by the Exchange.
Proposed BX Rule 4780(d) provides appeal rights to Members. If a Member disputes the Exchange's decision to disapprove it as an RMO under BX Rule 4780(b) or disqualify it under BX Rule 4780(c), such Member (“appellant”) may request, within five business days after notice of the decision is issued by the Exchange, that the Retail Price Improvement Program Panel (“RPI Panel”) review the decision to determine if it was correct.
The RPI Panel would consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”), or a designee of the CRO, and two officers of the Exchange designated by the Chief Executive Officer of BX. The RPI Panel would review the facts and render a decision within the time frame prescribed by the Exchange. The RPI Panel could overturn or modify an action taken by the Exchange and all determinations by the RPI Panel would constitute final action by the Exchange on the matter at issue.
Under proposed BX Rule 4780(e), the Exchange proposes to disseminate an identifier when RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the Exchange's Protected Bid or Protected Offer for a particular security is available in the System (“Retail Liquidity Identifier”). The Retail Liquidity Identifier will be disseminated through consolidated data streams (
Under proposed BX Rule 4780(f), an RMO can designate how a Retail Order would interact with available contra-side interest as follows.
As proposed, a Type 1-designated Retail Order would interact with available contra-side RPI Orders and other price improving liquidity but would not interact with other available contra-side interest in the System or route to other markets. The shares remaining from a Type 1-designated Retail Order that do not fully execute against contra-side RPI Orders or other price improving liquidity, if any, would be immediately and automatically cancelled.
A Type 2-designated Retail Order would also interact first with available contra-side RPI Orders and other price improving liquidity, but would also be eligible to interact with other available contra-side interest in the System or optionally route to other market centers pursuant to Rule 4758. Accordingly, the shares remaining from a Type 2-designated Retail Order that do not fully execute against contra-side RPI Orders or other price improving liquidity, if any, would execute against other liquidity available on the Exchange or be routed to other market centers for execution. The remaining unexecuted portion would then be cancelled.
Under proposed BX Rule 4780(g), the Exchange proposes that competing RPI Orders in the same security would be ranked and allocated according to price then time of entry into the System. The Exchange further proposes that executions will occur in price/time priority in accordance with BX Rule 4757. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest will remain available to interact with other incoming Retail Orders if such interest is at an eligible price. Any remaining unexecuted portion of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in accordance with proposed BX Rule 4780(f). The following example illustrates this proposed method:
An incoming Retail Order to sell 1,000 shares of ABC for $10.00 executes first against Member 3's bid for 500 at $10.035, because it is the best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid for 500 at $10.02, because it is the next best priced bid. Member 1 is not filled because the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 is depleted. The Retail Order executes against RPI Orders in price/time priority.
However, assume the same facts above, except that Member 2's RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 is for 100. The incoming Retail Order to sell 1,000 executes first against Member 3's bid for 500 at $10.035, because it is the best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid for 100 at $10.02, because it is the next best priced bid. Member 1 then receives an execution for 400 of its bid for 500 at $10.015, at which point the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 is depleted.
As a final example, assume the same facts as above, except that Member 3's order was not an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.035, but rather, a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.03. The result
The Exchange proposes that all Regulation NMS securities traded on the Exchange would be eligible for inclusion in the RPI Program. The Exchange proposes to limit the Program during the pilot period to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Toward that end, Exchange trade validation systems would prevent the interaction of RPI buy or sell interest (adjusted by any offset) and Retail Orders at a price below $1.00 per share.
Proposed BX Rule 4780 is substantially the same to the one establishing NASDAQ Rule 4780 governing NASDAQ's “Retail Price Improvement Program”, which was approved by the Commission and commenced operations on March 28, 2013.
The second distinction between proposed BX Rule 4780 and NYSE Rule 107C is that the Exchange proposes to in all cases execute incoming Retail Orders against resting RPI Orders and other resting non-displayed liquidity to maximize the price improvement available to the incoming Retail Order. As proposed, the Exchange will maintain its strict price/time priority model and will provide all available price improvement to incoming Retail Orders, whether such price improvement is submitted pursuant to the Program or as an order type currently accepted by the Exchange, such as non-displayed orders. In contrast, pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(k)(1), a Type 1-designated Retail Order, “will interact only with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and will not interact with other available contra-side interest in Exchange systems.”
Finally, as proposed the Exchange will provide applicable price improvement to incoming Retail Orders at potentially multiple price levels. In contrast, pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C an incoming Retail Order to NYSE will execute at the single clearing price level at which the incoming order will be fully executed. To illustrate, assume the same facts set forth in the second example above, where Member 2's RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 was for 100 shares. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C, an incoming Retail Order to sell 1,000 shares at $10.00 would execute first
The Exchange will submit a separate proposal to amend its fee schedule in connection with the proposed RPI Program. Under that proposal, the Exchange expects to charge Members a fee for executions of their RPI Orders against Retail Orders and in turn would provide a credit or free executions to RMOs for executions of their Retail Orders against RPI Orders. The fees and credits for liquidity providers and RMOs may be adjusted from time to time as the Exchange gains experience with the Program.
As explained above, the Exchange proposes to execute incoming Retail Orders against all available contra-side interest that will provide price improvement to the Retail Order, including non-displayed orders other than RPI Orders. In the event non-displayed interest priced better than the NBBO other than an RPI Order interacts with a Retail Order, the Exchange anticipates proposing to rebate the Member that entered such non-displayed interest a credit rather than the charge which is imposed for an RPI Order execution. In such cases, the rebate credited to the Member that entered the non-displayed interest may be less than the rebate credited that same Member for an execution against a non-Retail Order.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange understands that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
While the Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function through the interactions of diverse flow types, it also believes that growth in internalization has required differentiation of retail order flow from other order flow types. The differentiation proposed herein by the Exchange is not designed to permit unfair discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive process around retail executions such that retail investors would receive better prices than they currently do through bilateral internalization arrangements. The Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the RPI Program on an exchange market would result in better prices for retail investors. The Exchange recognizes that sub-penny trading and pricing could potentially result in undesirable market behavior. The Exchange will monitor the Program in an effort to identify and address any such behavior.
The Exchange will separately propose fees applicable to the Program, including fees or rebates for non-displayed orders offering price improvement other than RPI Orders that interact with Retail Orders. The Exchange believes any such proposal to treat such non-displayed orders differently depending on the parties with whom they interact is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange proposes that the Commission approve the proposed rule for a pilot period of twelve months from the date of implementation, which shall occur no later than 90 days after Commission approval of BX Rule 4780. The Program shall expire on [Date to be determined upon adoption of BX Rule 4780]. The Exchange believes that this pilot period is of sufficient length to permit both the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of the rule change described herein.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rules 11.9 and 11.13 to modify the routing strategies made available through the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”, and together with BZX, BYX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated Exchanges”).
The specific proposal set forth in more detail below would amend Rules 11.9 and 11.13, which describe the Exchange's routing options made available by the Exchange. Specifically, the changes to Rule 11.9 would relocate certain routing strategies identified as order types to Rule 11.13. The Exchange is also proposing to eliminate an obsolete routing strategy that is currently listed as an order type. Finally, the Exchange proposes to add to Rule 11.13 to offer many of the same routing strategies offered by EDGA and EDGX. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on the rules of EDGA and EDGX and is different only to the extent necessary to conform to the Exchange's current rules.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to re-locate two routing strategies from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13. Rule 11.9 generally contains order types and order type modifiers whereas Rule 11.13 describes routing strategies offered by the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to relocate Destination Specific Orders and Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders (“Directed ISOs”) from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13 because both orders are routing strategies rather than order types or order type modifiers. The Exchange notes that Rule 11.13 has always reflected that such descriptions are routing strategies by containing a cross-reference to such strategies in Rule 11.13(a)(3). The Exchange is not proposing to modify the description or operation of either Destination Specific Orders or Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders. The Exchange notes that it has proposed minor changes to the wording of both Destination Specific Orders and Directed ISOs in order to conform such routing strategies with the other strategies described in Rule 11.13(a)(3).
The Exchange also proposes to delete from Rule 11.9 an obsolete routing strategy, the Modified Destination Specific Order, which is currently set forth in Rule 11.9(c)(13). Modified Destination Specified Orders are market or limit orders that instruct the System
The Exchange proposes to add several new routing strategies based on routing strategies offered by EDGA and/or EDGX, as set forth below.
The Exchange currently offers various routing strategies under which an order checks the System for available shares and then is sent to destinations on the applicable System routing table.
The Exchange notes that the RTI option coupled with either ROUT or ROUX is similar to the Parallel D routing strategy described in current Rule 11.13(a)(3)(B) in that it routes to multiple destinations simultaneously but at a single price level whereas the RTF option coupled with either ROUT or ROUX is similar to the Parallel 2D routing strategy described in current Rule 11.13(a)(3)(C). The only distinction between Parallel D and Parallel 2D on one hand and ROUT or ROUX coupled with RTI or RTF on the other is that the existence of ROUT and ROUX plus either RTI or RTF will provide additional flexibility by allowing the Exchange to offer two System routing tables that can be paired with the applicable routing methodology. In order to allow a gradual migration from Parallel D and Parallel 2D to the proposed routing strategies (ROUT or ROUX plus RTI or RTF) the Exchange is not proposing to eliminate such routing strategies upon effectiveness of this proposal. Instead, the Exchange proposes to continue to accept orders designated for Parallel D and Parallel 2D routing and will eventually retire such routing strategies and remove reference to the routing strategies from Exchange rules once all affected Users have been migrated away from Parallel D and Parallel 2D to the new routing strategies. Further, adding the ROUT and ROUX routing strategies plus the RTI and RTF options as proposed will ensure consistency with EDGA and EDGX with respect to the names used to describe the strategies.
The Exchange also proposes to add the Post to Away routing option, which will route the remainder of a routed order to and posts such order on the order book of a destination on the System routing table as specified by the User. The Post to Away routing option is an alternative to either cancelling a routed order back to a User or posting such order to the BATS Book to the extent an order is not completely filled through the routing process. The Post to Away routing option can be combined with the following routing strategies (each of which is separately described in this filing): ROUT, ROUX, ROUZ,
The Exchange also proposes to adopt six additional routing strategies under which an order checks the System for available shares and is sent to a specified destination. Although the Exchange currently has similar order routing options through the Destination Specific routing option, the Exchange is proposing certain additional functionality with the proposed routing strategies to match functionality offered by EDGA and EDGX. The Exchange also believes that retaining the same names for such routing options as are utilized by EDGA and EDGX will help to promote the integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. These proposed routing strategies that are focused on particular destinations and/or particular functionality offered by such destinations are set forth below:
• INET. The Exchange proposes to add the INET routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to Nasdaq. If shares remain unexecuted after routing through the INET routing option, they will be posted on the Nasdaq book, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• RDOT. The Exchange proposes to add the RDOT routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be sent to NYSE and can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be posted to the NYSE, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• RDOX. The Exchange proposes to add the RDOX option under which an order will check the System for available shares, then will be sent to the NYSE and can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after routing, they will be posted on the NYSE book, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• ROLF. The Exchange proposes to add the ROLF routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent to LavaFlow ECN. If shares remain unexecuted after routing they will be cancelled, unless otherwise instructed by the User.
• IOCM. The Exchange proposes to add the IOCM routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares and then will be sent as a MidPoint Match order with a Time-in-Force of IOC to EDGX.
• ICMT. The Exchange proposes to add the ICMT routing option under which an order will check the System for available shares, will be sent to destinations on the System routing table and then will be sent as a MidPoint Match order with a Time-in-Force of IOC to EDGX.
The Exchange also proposes to add the ROOC routing option for orders that the entering User wishes to designate for participation in the opening, re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process of a primary listing market (BATS BZX, NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE MKT, or NYSE Arca) if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market. The ROOC routing option does not currently route to the re-opening process for BATS BZX. If shares remain unexecuted after attempting to execute in the opening, re-opening, or closing process, they will be posted to the BATS Book, executed, or routed to destinations on the System routing table.
In addition to the changes proposed above, the Exchange also proposes to re-number various existing paragraphs of Rule 11.13(a)(3) in connection with the addition of the proposed routing strategies, including re-numbering the RMPT routing strategy as Rule 11.13(a)(3)(Q). Accordingly, the Exchange also proposes to modify the cross-reference to the RMPT routing strategy contained in Rule 11.9(c)(9) to this updated reference. The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in Rule 11.13(a)(3)(I), which describes SWP orders, by referencing Rule 11.18(e) instead of Rule 11.8(e) with respect to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
As noted above, the proposed rule changes to add functionality are intended to add certain system functionality currently offered by EDGA and EDGX in order to provide a consistent technology offering for the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. A consistent technology offering, in turn, will simplify the technology implementation, changes and maintenance by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BZX, EDGA and/or EDGX. The proposed rule changes would also provide Users with access to functionality that may result in the efficient execution of such orders and will provide additional flexibility as well as increased functionality to the Exchange's System and its Users. As explained elsewhere in this proposal, all of the proposed routing options are similar to routing strategies on other market centers, including EDGA and EDGX.
The Exchange also believes that re-locating certain routing options from Rule 11.9 to Rule 11.13 is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest pursuant to the Act because such changes will enable those reviewing the Exchange's rules to more clearly understand such rules.
Finally, the Exchange believes that elimination of the Modified Destination Specific Order is consistent with the Act because such routing strategy is not currently offered by the Exchange because there are no currently approved destinations for such strategy. Thus, eliminating reference to such strategy will avoid confusion by market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange provides routing services in a highly competitive market in which participants may avail themselves of a wide variety of routing options offered by self-regulatory organizations, alternative trading systems, other broker-dealers, market participants' own proprietary routing systems, and service bureaus. In such an environment, system enhancements such as the changes proposed in this rule filing do not burden competition, because they can succeed in attracting order flow to
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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.
Social Security Administration.
Notice.
Under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), there will be a 1.7 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits effective December 2014. In addition, the national average wage index for 2013 is $44,888.16. The cost-of-living increase and national average wage index affect other program parameters as described below.
Susan C. Kunkel, Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security
Because of the 1.7 percent cost-of-living increase, the following items will increase for 2015:
(1) The maximum Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) monthly benefit amounts for 2015 under title XVI of the Act will be $733 for an eligible individual, $1,100 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, and $367 for an essential person;
(2) The special benefit amount under title VIII of the Act for certain World War II veterans will be $549.75 for 2015;
(3) The student earned income exclusion under title XVI of the Act will be $1,780 per month in 2015, but not more than $7,180 for all of 2015;
(4) The dollar fee limit for services performed as a representative payee will be $41 per month ($78 per month in the case of a beneficiary who is disabled and has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition that leaves him or her incapable of managing benefits) in 2015; and
(5) The dollar limit on the administrative-cost fee assessment charged to an appointed representative such as an attorney, agent, or other person who represents claimants will be $91 beginning in December 2014.
The national average wage index for 2013 is $44,888.16. This index affects the following amounts:
(1) The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) contribution and benefit base will be $118,500 for remuneration paid in 2015 and self-employment income earned in taxable years beginning in 2015;
(2) The monthly exempt amounts under the OASDI retirement earnings test for taxable years ending in calendar year 2015 will be $1,310 for beneficiaries who will attain their Normal Retirement Age (NRA) (defined below in the
(3) The dollar amounts (“bend points”) used in the primary insurance amount (PIA) benefit formula for workers who become eligible for benefits, or who die before becoming eligible, in 2015 will be $826 and $4,980;
(4) The bend points used in the formula for computing maximum family benefits for workers who become eligible for benefits, or who die before becoming eligible, in 2015 will be $1,056, $1,524, and $1,987;
(5) The taxable earnings a person must have to be credited with a quarter of coverage in 2015 will be $1,220;
(6) The “old-law” contribution and benefit base under title II of the Act will be $88,200 for 2015;
(7) The monthly amount deemed to constitute substantial gainful activity for statutorily blind persons in 2015 will be $1,820. The corresponding amount for non-blind disabled persons will be $1,090;
(8) The earnings threshold establishing a month as a part of a trial work period will be $780 for 2015; and
(9) Coverage thresholds for 2015 will be $1,900 for domestic workers and $1,600 for election officials and election workers.
According to section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Act, we must publish the benefit increase percentage and the revised table of “special minimum” benefits within 45 days after the close of the third calendar quarter of 2014. We must also publish by November 1: The national average wage index for 2013 (215(a)(1)(D)), the OASDI fund ratio for 2014 (section 215(i)(2)(C)(ii)), the OASDI contribution and benefit base for 2015 (section 230(a)), the earnings required to be credited with a quarter of coverage in 2015 (section 213(d)(2)), the monthly exempt amounts under the Social Security retirement earnings test for 2015 (section 203(f)(8)(A)), the formula for computing a PIA for workers who first become eligible for benefits or die in 2015 (section 215(a)(1)(D)), and the formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a worker who first becomes eligible for old-age benefits or dies in 2015 (section 203(a)(2)(C)).
The cost-of-living increase is 1.7 percent for benefits under titles II and XVI of the Act. Under title II, OASDI benefits will increase by 1.7 percent for individuals eligible for December 2014 benefits, payable in January 2015. We base this increase on the authority contained in section 215(i) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 1617 of the Act, Federal SSI payment levels will also increase by 1.7 percent effective for payments made for January 2015 but paid on December 31, 2014.
Computation of the cost-of-living increase is based on an increase in a Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the time the Act was amended to provide cost-of-living increases, only one Consumer Price Index existed, namely the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics has since developed other consumer price indices, legal precedent requires us to use the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. We refer to this index in the following paragraphs as the CPI.
Section 215(i)(1)(B) of the Act defines a “computation quarter” to be a third calendar quarter in which the average CPI exceeded the average CPI in the previous computation quarter. The last cost-of-living increase, effective for those eligible to receive title II benefits for December 2013, was based on the CPI increase from the third quarter of 2012 to the third quarter of 2013. Therefore, the last computation quarter is the third quarter of 2013. The law states that a cost-of-living increase for benefits is determined based on the percentage increase, if any, in the CPI from the last computation quarter to the third quarter of the current year. Therefore, we compute the increase in the CPI from the third quarter of 2013 to the third quarter of 2014.
Section 215(i)(1) of the Act states that the CPI for a cost-of-living computation quarter is the arithmetic mean of this index for the 3 months in that quarter. In accordance with 20 CFR 404.275, we round the arithmetic mean, if necessary, to the nearest 0.001. The CPI for each month in the quarter ending September 30, 2013, is: For July 2013, 230.084; for August 2013, 230.359; and for September 2013, 230.537. The arithmetic mean for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2013 is 230.327. The CPI for each month in the quarter ending September 30, 2014, is: For July 2014, 234.525; for August 2014, 234.030; and for September 2014, 234.170. The arithmetic mean for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2014 is 234.242. The CPI for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2014, exceeds that for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2013 by 1.7 percent (rounded to the nearest 0.1). Therefore, beginning December 2014 a cost-of-living benefit increase of 1.7 percent is effective for benefits under title II of the Act.
Section 215(i) also specifies that a benefit increase under title II, effective for December of any year, will be
The following program amounts change based on the cost-of-living increase: (1) Title II benefits; (2) title XVI benefits; (3) title VIII benefits; (4) the student earned income exclusion; (5) the fee for services performed by a representative payee; and (6) the appointed representative fee assessment.
In accordance with section 215(i) of the Act, for workers and family members for whom eligibility for benefits (i.e., the worker's attainment of age 62, or disability or death before age 62) occurred before 2015, benefits will increase by 1.7 percent beginning with benefits for December 2014, which are payable in January 2015. For first eligibility after 2014, the 1.7 percent increase will not apply.
For eligibility after 1978, we determine benefits using a formula provided by the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–216), as described later in this notice.
For eligibility before 1979, we determine benefits by using a benefit table. The table is available on the Internet at
Section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Act requires that, when we determine an increase in Social Security benefits, we will publish in the
In accordance with section 1617 of the Act, maximum Federal SSI benefit amounts for the aged, blind, and disabled will increase by 1.7 percent effective January 2015. For 2014, we derived the monthly benefit amounts for an eligible individual, an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, and for an essential person—$721, $1,082, and $361, respectively—from yearly, unrounded Federal SSI benefit amounts of $8,657.26, $12,984.44, and $4,338.55. For 2015, these yearly unrounded amounts respectively increase by 1.7 percent to $8,804.43, $13,205.18, and $4,412.31. We must round each of these resulting amounts, when not a multiple of $12, to the next lower multiple of $12. Therefore, the annual amounts, effective for 2015, are $8,796, $13,200, and $4,404. Dividing the yearly amounts by 12 gives the respective monthly amounts for 2015—$733, $1,100, and $367. For an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, we equally divide the amount payable between the two spouses.
Title VIII of the Act provides for special benefits to certain World War II veterans who reside outside the United States. Section 805 provides that “[t]he benefit under this title payable to a qualified individual for any month shall be in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal benefit rate [the maximum amount for an eligible individual] under title XVI for the month, reduced by the amount of the qualified individual's benefit income for the month.” Therefore, the monthly benefit for 2015 under this provision is 75 percent of $733, or $549.75.
A blind or disabled child who is a student regularly attending school, college, university, or a course of vocational or technical training can have limited earnings that do not count against his or her SSI benefits. The maximum amount of such income that we may exclude in 2014 is $1,750 per month, but not more than $7,060 in all of 2014. These amounts increase based on a formula set forth in regulation 20 CFR 416.1112.
To compute each of the monthly and yearly maximum amounts for 2015, we increase the unrounded amount for 2014 by the latest cost-of-living increase. If the amount so calculated is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10. The unrounded monthly amount for 2014 is $1,751.59. We increase this amount by 1.7 percent to $1,781.37, which we then round to $1,780. Similarly, we increase the unrounded yearly amount for 2014, $7,060.62, by 1.7 percent to $7,180.65 and round this to $7,180. Therefore, the maximum amount of the income exclusion applicable to a student in 2015 is $1,780 per month but not more than $7,180 in all of 2015.
Sections 205(j)(4)(A)(i) and 1631(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act permit a qualified organization to collect a monthly fee from a beneficiary for expenses incurred in providing services as the beneficiary's representative payee. In 2014, the fee is limited to the lesser of: (1) 10 percent of the monthly benefit involved; or (2) $40 each month ($77 each month when the beneficiary is entitled to disability benefits and has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition that makes the individual incapable of managing such benefits). The dollar fee limits are subject to increase by the cost-of-living increase, with the resulting amounts rounded to
Under sections 206(d) and 1631(d) of the Act, whenever we pay a fee to a representative such as an attorney, agent, or other person who represents claimants, we must impose on the representative an assessment to cover administrative costs. The assessment is no more than 6.3 percent of the representative's authorized fee or, if lower, a dollar amount that is subject to increase by the cost-of-living increase. We derive the dollar limit for December 2014 by increasing the unrounded limit for December 2013, $89.68, by 1.7 percent, which is $91.20. We then round $91.20 to the next lower multiple of $1. The dollar limit effective for December 2014 is, therefore, $91.
We determined the national average wage index for calendar year 2013 based on the 2012 national average wage index of $44,321.67, announced in the
Multiplying the national average wage index for 2012 ($44,321.67) by the ratio of the average wage for 2013 ($43,041.39) to that for 2012 ($42,498.21) produces the 2013 index, $44,888.16. The national average wage index for calendar year 2013 is about 1.28 percent higher than the 2012 index.
The following amounts change with annual changes in the national average wage index: (1) The OASDI contribution and benefit base; (2) the exempt amounts under the retirement earnings test; (3) the dollar amounts, or bend points, in the PIA formula; (4) the bend points in the maximum family benefit formula; (5) the earnings required to credit a worker with a quarter of coverage; (6) the old-law contribution and benefit base (as determined under section 230 of the Act as in effect before the 1977 amendments); (7) the substantial gainful activity (SGA) amount applicable to statutorily blind individuals; and (8) the coverage threshold for election officials and election workers. Section 3121(x) of the Internal Revenue Code requires that the domestic employee coverage threshold be based on changes in the national average wage index.
In addition to the amounts required by statute, two amounts increase under regulatory requirements—the SGA amount applicable to non-blind disabled persons, and the monthly earnings threshold that establishes a month as part of a trial work period for disabled beneficiaries.
The OASDI contribution and benefit base is $118,500 for remuneration paid in 2015 and self-employment income earned in taxable years beginning in 2015. The OASDI contribution and benefit base serves as the maximum annual earnings on which OASDI taxes are paid. It is also the maximum annual earnings used in determining a person's OASDI benefits.
Section 230(b) of the Act provides the formula used to determine the OASDI contribution and benefit base. Under the formula, the base for 2015 is the larger of: (1) The 1994 base of $60,600 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1992; or (2) the current base ($117,000). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $300, we round it to the nearest multiple of $300.
Multiplying the 1994 OASDI contribution and benefit base ($60,600) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16 as determined above) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $118,603.56. We round this amount to $118,500. Because $118,500 exceeds the current base amount of $117,000, the OASDI contribution and benefit base is $118,500 for 2015.
We withhold Social Security benefits when a beneficiary under the NRA has earnings over the applicable retirement earnings test exempt amount. NRA is the age of initial benefit entitlement for which the benefit, before rounding, is equal to the worker's PIA. The NRA is age 66 for those born in 1943–54, and it gradually increases reaching age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. A higher exempt amount applies in the year in which a person attains his or her NRA, but only for earnings in months before such attainment. A lower exempt amount applies at all other ages below NRA. Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the Act, as amended by section 102 of Pub. L. 104–121, provides formulas for determining the monthly exempt amounts. The annual exempt amounts are exactly 12 times the monthly amounts.
For beneficiaries who attain NRA in the year, we withhold $1 in benefits for every $3 of earnings over the annual exempt amount for months before NRA. For all other beneficiaries under NRA, we withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 of earnings over the annual exempt amount.
Under the formula applicable to beneficiaries attaining NRA after 2015, the lower monthly exempt amount for 2015 is the larger of: (1) The 1994 monthly exempt amount multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1992; or (2) the 2014 monthly exempt amount ($1,290). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Under the formula that applies to beneficiaries attaining NRA in 2015, the higher monthly exempt amount for 2015 is the larger of: (1) The 2002 monthly exempt amount multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 2000; or (2) the 2014 monthly exempt amount ($3,450). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1994 retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount of $670 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $1,311.29. We round this to $1,310. Because $1,310 exceeds the current exempt amount of $1,290, the lower retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount is $1,310 for 2015. The lower
Multiplying the 2002 retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount of $2,500 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 2000 ($32,154.82) produces $3,490.00. We round this to $3,490. Because $3,490 exceeds the current exempt amount of $3,450, the higher retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount is $3,490 for 2015. The higher annual exempt amount is $41,880 under the retirement earnings test.
The Social Security Amendments of 1977 provided a method for computing benefits that generally applies when a worker first becomes eligible for benefits after 1978. This method uses the worker's average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) to compute the PIA. We adjust the formula each year to reflect changes in general wage levels, as measured by the national average wage index.
We also adjust, or index, a worker's earnings to reflect the change in the general wage levels that occurred during the worker's years of employment. Such indexing ensures that a worker's future benefit level will reflect the general rise in the standard of living that will occur during his or her working lifetime. To compute the AIME, we first determine the required number of years of earnings. We then select the number of years with the highest indexed earnings, add the indexed earnings for those years, and divide the total amount by the total number of months in those years. We then round the resulting average amount down to the next lower dollar amount. The result is the AIME.
The PIA is the sum of three separate percentages of portions of the AIME. In 1979 (the first year the formula was in effect), these portions were the first $180, the amount between $180 and $1,085, and the amount over $1,085. We call the dollar amounts in the formula governing the portions of the AIME the “bend points” of the formula. Therefore, the bend points for 1979 were $180 and $1,085.
To obtain the bend points for 2015, we multiply each of the 1979 bend-point amounts by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that average for 1977. We then round these results to the nearest dollar. Multiplying the 1979 amounts of $180 and $1,085 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1977 ($9,779.44) produces the amounts of $826.21 and $4,980.21. We round these to $826 and $4,980. Therefore, the portions of the AIME to be used in 2015 are the first $826, the amount between $826 and $4,980, and the amount over $4,980.
Therefore, for individuals who first become eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2015, or who die in 2015 before becoming eligible for benefits, their PIA will be the sum of:
(a) 90 percent of the first $826 of their AIME, plus
(b) 32 percent of their AIME over $826 and through $4,980, plus
(c) 15 percent of their AIME over $4,980.
We round this amount to the next lower multiple of $0.10 if it is not already a multiple of $0.10. This formula and the rounding adjustment are stated in section 215(a) of the Act.
The 1977 amendments continued the policy of limiting the total monthly benefits that a worker's family may receive based on his or her PIA. Those amendments also continued the relationship between maximum family benefits and PIAs but changed the method of computing the maximum benefits that may be paid to a worker's family. The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–265) established a formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a disabled worker. This formula applies to the family benefits of workers who first become entitled to disability insurance benefits after June 30, 1980, and who first become eligible for these benefits after 1978. For disabled workers initially entitled to disability benefits before July 1980 or whose disability began before 1979, we compute the family maximum payable the same as the old-age and survivor family maximum.
The formula used to compute the family maximum is similar to that used to compute the PIA. It involves computing the sum of four separate percentages of portions of the worker's PIA. In 1979, these portions were the first $230, the amount between $230 and $332, the amount between $332 and $433, and the amount over $433. We refer to such dollar amounts in the formula as the “bend points” of the family-maximum formula.
To obtain the bend points for 2015, we multiply each of the 1979 bend-point amounts by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that average for 1977. Then we round this amount to the nearest dollar. Multiplying the amounts of $230, $332, and $433 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1977 ($9,779.44) produces the amounts of $1,055.71, $1,523.90, and $1,987.49. We round these amounts to $1,056, $1,524, and $1,987. Therefore, the portions of the PIAs to be used in 2015 are the first $1,056, the amount between $1,056 and $1,524, the amount between $1,524 and $1,987, and the amount over $1,987.
Thus, for the family of a worker who becomes age 62 or dies in 2015 before age 62, we will compute the total benefits payable to them so that it does not exceed:
(a) 150 percent of the first $1,056 of the worker's PIA, plus
(b) 272 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,056 through $1,524, plus
(c) 134 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,524 through $1,987, plus
(d) 175 percent of the worker's PIA over $1,987.
We then round this amount to the next lower multiple of $0.10 if it is not already a multiple of $0.10. This formula and the rounding adjustment are contained in section 203(a) of the Act.
The earnings required for a quarter of coverage in 2015 is $1,220. A quarter of coverage is the basic unit for determining if a worker is insured under the Social Security program. For years before 1978, we generally credited an individual with a quarter of coverage for each quarter in which wages of $50 or more were paid, or with 4 quarters of coverage for every taxable year in which $400 or more of self-employment income was earned. Beginning in 1978, employers generally report wages yearly instead of quarterly. With the change to yearly reporting, section 352(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1977 amended section 213(d) of the Act to provide that a quarter of coverage would be credited for each $250 of an individual's total wages and self-employment income for calendar year 1978, up to a maximum of 4 quarters of coverage for the year.
Under the prescribed formula, the quarter of coverage amount for 2015 is the larger of: (1) The 1978 amount of $250 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1976; or (2) the current amount of $1,200. Section 213(d) provides that if the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1978 quarter of coverage amount ($250) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1976 ($9,226.48) produces $1,216.29. We then round this amount to $1,220. Because $1,220 exceeds the current amount of $1,200, the quarter of coverage amount is $1,220 for 2015.
The old-law contribution and benefit base for 2015 is $88,200. This base would have been effective under the Act without the enactment of the 1977 amendments.
The old-law contribution and benefit base is used by:
(a) The Railroad Retirement program to determine certain tax liabilities and tier II benefits payable under that program to supplement the tier I payments that correspond to basic Social Security benefits,
(b) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to determine the maximum amount of pension guaranteed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (section 230(d) of the Act),
(c) Social Security to determine a year of coverage in computing the special minimum benefit, as described earlier, and
(d) Social Security to determine a year of coverage (acquired whenever earnings equal or exceed 25 percent of the old-law base for this purpose only) in computing benefits for persons who are also eligible to receive pensions based on employment not covered under section 210 of the Act.
The old-law contribution and benefit base is the larger of: (1) The 1994 old-law base ($45,000) multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1992; or (2) the current old-law base ($87,000). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $300, we round it to the nearest multiple of $300.
Multiplying the 1994 old-law contribution and benefit base ($45,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $88,071.95. We round this amount to $88,200. Because $88,200 exceeds the current amount of $87,000, the old-law contribution and benefit base is $88,200 for 2015.
A finding of disability under titles II and XVI of the Act requires that a person, except for a title XVI disabled child, be unable to engage in SGA. A person who is earning more than a certain monthly amount is ordinarily considered to be engaging in SGA. The monthly earnings considered as SGA depends on the nature of a person's disability. Section 223(d)(4)(A) of the Act specifies a higher SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals under title II while Federal regulations (20 CFR 404.1574 and 416.974) specify a lower SGA amount for non-blind individuals.
The monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals under title II for 2015 is the larger of: (1) Such amount for 1994 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1992; or (2) such amount for 2014. The monthly SGA amount for non-blind disabled individuals for 2015 is the larger of: (1) Such amount for 2000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1998; or (2) such amount for 2014. In either case, if the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1994 monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals ($930) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $1,820.15. We then round this amount to $1,820. Because $1,820 exceeds the current amount of $1,800, the monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals is $1,820 for 2015.
Multiplying the 2000 monthly SGA amount for non-blind individuals ($700) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1998 ($28,861.44) produces $1,088.71. We then round this amount to $1,090. Because $1,090 exceeds the current amount of $1,070, the monthly SGA amount for non-blind disabled individuals is $1,090 for 2015.
During a trial work period of 9 months in a rolling 60-month period, a beneficiary receiving Social Security disability benefits may test his or her ability to work and still receive monthly benefit payments. To be considered a trial work period month, earnings must be over a certain level. In 2015, any month in which earnings exceed $780 is considered a month of services for an individual's trial work period.
The method used to determine the new amount is set forth in our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1592(b). Monthly earnings in 2015, used to determine whether a month is part of a trial work period, is the amount for 2001 ($530) multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1999 or, if larger, the amount for 2014. If the amount so calculated is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 2001 monthly earnings threshold ($530) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1999 ($30,469.84) produces $780.80. We then round this amount to $780. Because $780 exceeds the current amount of $770, the monthly earnings threshold is $780 for 2015.
The minimum amount a domestic worker must earn so that such earnings are covered under Social Security or Medicare is the domestic employee coverage threshold. For 2015, this threshold is $1,900. Section 3121(x) of the Internal Revenue Code provides the formula for increasing the threshold.
Under the formula, the domestic employee coverage threshold for 2015 is equal to the 1995 amount of $1,000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1993. If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $100, we round it to the next lower multiple of $100.
Multiplying the 1995 domestic employee coverage threshold ($1,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1993 ($23,132.67) produces $1,940.47. We then round this amount to $1,900. Therefore, the domestic employee coverage threshold amount is $1,900 for 2015.
The minimum amount an election official and election worker must earn so the earnings are covered under Social Security or Medicare is the election official and election worker coverage threshold. For 2015, this threshold is $1,600. Section 218(c)(8)(B) of the Act provides the formula for increasing the threshold.
Under the formula, the election official and election worker coverage threshold for 2015 is equal to the 1999 amount of $1,000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 to that for 1997. If the amount we determine is not a multiple of $100, it we round it to the nearest multiple of $100.
Multiplying the 1999 election worker coverage threshold amount ($1,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2013 ($44,888.16) to that for 1997 ($27,426.00) produces $1,636.70. We then round this amount to $1,600. Therefore, the election worker coverage threshold amount is $1,600 for 2015.
Department of State.
Notice, correction.
On December 10, 2012, notice was published on page 73511 of the
For further information, including a list of the additional objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases Joint With EUROCAE WG–44—Aeronautical Databases.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases being held jointly with EUROCAE WG–44—Aeronautical Databases.
The meeting will be held December 2–5, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC.
Sophie Bousquet,
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217—Aeronautical Databases held jointly with EUROCAE WG–44—Aeronautical Databases. The agenda will include the following:
• Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
• Housekeeping
• Approve minutes from 21th meeting
• Review and approve meeting agenda for 22th meeting
• Schedule and working arrangements for this week
• Review of joint WG–1/WG–2 Action Items
• Closing Plenary Schedule
• WG1—Final work and review before FRAC
• WG1—Schedule for FRAC release and associated actions
• WG2—Action Item Status Review
• WG2—Review of Working Papers, Discussion Papers, Information Papers
• Presentation of WG1 and WG2 conclusions
• Approval to release DO–200A/ED–76 Revision for FRAC
• Working arrangements for the remaining work
• Review of action items
• Next meetings, dates and locations
• Any other business
• Adjourn
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 228—Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the seventh meeting of RTCA Special Committee 228—Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
The meeting will be held November 21, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330–0662 or (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 228—Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The agenda will include the following:
All Day, Working Group 1–DAA, MacIntosh–NBAA Room & Colson Board Room.
All Day, Working Group 2–C2, ARINC & Hilton-A4A Rooms
• Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks/SC–228 Participation Guidelines
• Reading of the Public Announcement by the DFO
• Reading of the RTCA Proprietary References Policy
• Agenda Overview
• Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary #6 (RTCA Paper No. 183–14/SC228–017) held Thursday, August 28, 2014 at RTCA
• Report from EUROCAE WG–73 on their progress
• Review of RTCA SC–228 Steering Committee Activity
• Report from WG–1 for Detect and Avoid progress on the DAA MOPS
• Report from WG–2 for Command and Control progress on the CNPC MOPS
• Action Item Review
• Other Business
• Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting(s)
• Plenary #8—27 February 2015 @RTCA
• Proposed—Plenary #9—21 May 2015 @ NASA Ames
• Adjourn Plenary
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA).
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces the extension of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) until October 1, 2019, pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. The purpose of the VISA is to make intermodal shipping services/systems, including ships, ships' space, intermodal equipment and related management services, available to the Department of Defense as required to support the emergency deployment and sustainment of U.S. Armed Forces. This is to be accomplished through cooperation among the maritime industry, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense.
Jerome D. Davis, Director, Office of Sealift Support, Room W25–310, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–2323, Fax (202) 366–5904.
Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. 2158), “Voluntary agreements for preparedness programs and expansion of production capacity and supply”, authorizes the President, upon a finding that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs, “to consult with representatives of industry, business, financing, agriculture, labor and other interests” in order to provide the making of such voluntary agreements. It further authorizes the President to delegate that authority to individuals who are appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, upon the condition that such individuals obtain the prior approval of the Attorney General after the Attorney General's consultation with the Federal Trade Commission. Section 401 of Executive Order 13603 delegated this authority of the President to the Secretary of Transportation (SecTrans), among others. By 49 CFR 1.93(l), the SecTrans delegated to the Maritime Administrator the authority under which the VISA is sponsored. Through advance arrangements in joint planning, it is intended that participants in VISA
The text of the VISA was first published in the
For purposes of this agreement, the following definitions apply:
The Administrator, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 2158)(Section 708)(DPA), in cooperation with DoD, has developed this Agreement [hereafter called the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA)] to provide DoD the commercial sealift and intermodal shipping services/systems necessary to meet national defense Contingency requirements.
USTRANSCOM procures commercial shipping capacity to meet requirements for ships and intermodal shipping services/systems through arrangements with common carriers, with contract carriers and by charter. DoD (through USTRANSCOM) and DOT (through MARAD) maintain and operate a fleet of ships owned by or under charter to the Federal Government to meet the logistic needs of the military services which cannot be met by existing commercial service. Government controlled ships are selectively activated for peacetime military tests and exercises, and to satisfy military operational requirements which cannot be met by commercial shipping in time of war, national emergency, or military contingency. Foreign-flag shipping is used in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.
The objective of VISA is to provide DoD a coordinated, seamless transition from peacetime to wartime for the acquisition of commercial sealift and intermodal capability to augment DoD's organic sealift capabilities. This Agreement establishes the terms, conditions and general procedures by which persons or parties may become VISA Participants. Through advance joint planning among USTRANSCOM, MARAD and the Participants, Participants may provide predetermined capacity in designated stages to support DoD Contingency requirements.
VISA is designed to create close working relationships among MARAD, USTRANSCOM and Participants through which Contingency needs and the needs of the civil economy can be met by cooperative action. During Contingencies, Participants are afforded maximum flexibility to adjust commercial operations by Carrier Coordination Agreements (CCA), in accordance with applicable law.
Participants will be afforded the first opportunity to meet DoD peacetime and Contingency sealift requirements within applicable law and regulations, to the extent that operational requirements are met. In the event VISA Participants are unable to fully meet Contingency requirements, the shipping capacity made available under VISA may be supplemented by ships/capacity from non-Participants in accordance with applicable law and by ships requisitioned under 46 U.S.C. 56301. In addition, containers and chassis made available under VISA may be supplemented by services and equipment acquired by USTRANSCOM or accessed by the Administrator through the provisions of 46 CFR Part 340.
The SecDef has approved VISA as a sealift readiness program for the purpose of 46 U.S.C. 53107.
A. The Administrator has made a determination, in accordance with Section 708(c)(1) of the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense of the United States or its preparedness programs and, under the provisions of Section 708, has certified to the Attorney General that a standby agreement for utilization of intermodal shipping services/systems is necessary for the national defense. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, has issued a finding that dry cargo shipping capacity to meet national defense requirements cannot be provided by the industry through a voluntary agreement having less anticompetitive effects or without a voluntary agreement.
B. The purpose of VISA is to provide a responsive transition from peace to Contingency operations through pre-coordinated agreements for sealift capacity to support DoD Contingency requirements. VISA establishes procedures for the commitment of intermodal shipping services/systems to satisfy such requirements. VISA will change from standby to active status upon activation by appropriate authority of any of the Stages, as described in Section V.
C. It is intended that VISA promote and facilitate DoD's use of existing commercial transportation resources and integrated intermodal transportation systems, in a manner which minimizes disruption to
D. Participants' capacity which may be committed pursuant to this Agreement may include all intermodal shipping services/systems and all ship types, including container, partial container, container/bulk, container/roll-on/roll-off, roll-on/roll-off (of all varieties), breakbulk ships, tug and barge combinations, and barge carrier (LASH, SeaBee).
1. Sections 101 and 708 of the DPA, as amended (50 U.S.C. App 2158); Executive Order 13603, 77 FR 16651, March 16, 2012; 49 CFR 1.93(l); 46 CFR Part 340.
2. Section 401 of Executive Order 13603 delegated the authority of the President under Section 708 to SecTrans, among others. By 49 CFR 1.93(l), SecTrans delegated to the Administrator the authority under which VISA is sponsored.
1. Section 113 and Chapter 6 of Title 10 of the United States Code.
2. DoD Directive 5158.4 designating the Commander to provide common user air, land, and sea transportation for DoD.
1. VISA provides for the staged, time-phased availability of Participants' shipping services/systems to meet NCA-directed DoD Contingency requirements in the most demanding defense oriented sealift emergencies and for less demanding defense oriented situations through prenegotiated Contingency contracts between the government and Participants (see Figure 1). Such arrangements will be jointly planned with MARAD, USTRANSCOM, and Participants in peacetime to allow effective, and efficient and best valued use of commercial sealift capacity, provide DoD assured Contingency access, and minimize commercial disruption, whenever possible.
a. Stages I and II provide for prenegotiated contracts between DoD and Participants to provide sealift capacity against all projected DoD Contingency requirements. These agreements will be executed in accordance with approved DoD contracting methodologies.
b. Stage III will provide for additional capacity to DoD when Stages I and II commitments or volunteered capacity are insufficient to meet Contingency requirements, and adequate shipping services from non-Participants are not available through established DoD contracting practices or U.S. Government treaty agreements.
2. Activation will be in accordance with procedures outlined in Section V of this Agreement.
3. Following is the prioritized order for utilization of commercial sealift capacity to meet DoD peacetime and Contingency requirements:
a. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a Participant and U.S.-flag Vessel Sharing Agreement (VSA) capacity of a Participant.
b. U.S.-flag vessel capacity operated by a non-Participant.
c. Combination U.S./foreign flag vessel capacity operated by a Participant and combination U.S./foreign flag VSA capacity of a Participant.
d. Combination U.S./foreign flag vessel capacity operated by a non-Participant.
e. U.S.-owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a Participant.
f. U.S.-owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a non-Participant.
g. Foreign-owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity of a non-Participant.
4. Under Section VI.F. of this Agreement, Participants may implement CCAs to fulfill their contractual commitments to meet VISA requirements.
1. The SecDef, through USTRANSCOM, shall:
a. Define time-phased requirements for Contingency sealift capacity and resources required in Stages I, II and III to augment DoD sealift resources.
b. Keep MARAD and Participants apprised of Contingency sealift capacity required and resources committed to Stages I and II.
c. Obtain Contingency sealift capacity through the implementation of specific prenegotiated DoD Contingency contracts with Participants.
d. Notify the Administrator upon activation of any stage of VISA.
e. Co-chair (with MARAD) the Joint Planning Advisory Group (JPAG).
f. Establish procedures, in accordance with applicable law and regulation, providing Participants with necessary determinations for use of foreign flag vessels to replace an equivalent U.S.-flag capacity to transport a Participant's normal peacetime DoD cargo, when Participant's U.S.-flag assets are removed from regular service to meet VISA Contingency requirements.
g. Provide a reasonable time to permit an orderly return of a Participant's vessel(s) to its regular schedule and termination of its foreign flag capacity arrangements as determined through coordination between DoD and the Participants.
h. Review and endorse Participants' requests to MARAD for use of foreign flag replacement capacity for non-DoD government cargo, when U.S.-flag capacity is required to meet Contingency requirements.
2. The SecTrans, through MARAD, shall:
a. Review the amount of sealift resources committed in DoD contracts to Stages I and II and notify USTRANSCOM if a particular level of VISA commitment will have serious adverse impact on the commercial sealift industry's ability to provide essential services. MARAD's analysis shall be based on the consideration that all VISA Stage I and II capacity committed will be activated. This notification will occur on an as required basis upon the Commander's acceptance of VISA commitments from the Participants. If so advised by MARAD, USTRANSCOM will adjust the size of the stages or provide MARAD with justification for maintaining the size of those stages. USTRANSCOM and MARAD will coordinate to ensure that the amount of sealift assets committed to Stages I and II will not have an adverse, national economic impact.
b. Coordinate with DOJ for the expedited approval of CCAs.
c. Upon request by the Commander and approval by SecDef to activate Stage III, allocate sealift capacity and intermodal assets to meet DoD Contingency requirements. DoD shall have priority consideration in any allocation situation.
d. Establish procedures, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 53107(f), for determinations regarding the equivalency and duration of the use of foreign flag vessels to replace U.S.-flag vessel capacity to transport the cargo of a Participant which has entered into an operating agreement under 46 U.S.C. 53103 whose U.S.-flag vessel capacity has been removed from regular service to meet VISA contingency requirements. Such foreign flag vessels shall be eligible to transport cargo that is subject to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631), P.R. 17 (46 U.S.C. 55304) the Cargo Preference Act of 1954 (46 U.S.C. 55305) and 46 U.S.C. 55302(a). However, any procedures regarding the use of such foreign flag vessels to transport cargo subject to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 must have the concurrence of USTRANSCOM before it becomes effective.
e. Co-chair (with USTRANSCOM) the JPAG.
f. Seek necessary Jones Act waivers as required. To the extent feasible, participants with Jones Act vessels or vessel capacity will use CCAs or other arrangements to protect their ability to maintain services for their commercial customers and to fulfill their commercial peacetime commitments with U.S.-flag vessels. In situations where the activation of this Agreement deprives a Participant of all or a portion of its Jones Act vessels or vessel capacity and, at the same time, creates a general shortage of Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity on the market, the Administrator may request that the Secretary of Homeland Security grant a temporary waiver of the provisions of the Jones Act to permit a Participant to charter or otherwise utilize non-Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity, with priority consideration recommended for U.S. crewed vessel(s) or vessel capacity. The vessel(s) or vessel capacity for which such waivers are requested will be approximately equal to the Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity chartered or under contract to DoD, and any waiver that may be granted will be effective for the period that the Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity is on charter or under contract to DoD plus a reasonable time for termination of the replacement charters as determined by the Administrator.
1. USTRANSCOM will notify the Administrator as soon as possible of the prospective termination of charters, leases, management service contracts or other contractual arrangements made by DoD under this Agreement.
2. In the event of general requisitioning of ships under 46 U.S.C. 56301, the Administrator shall consider commitments made with DoD under this Agreement.
1. The Attorney General may modify this Agreement, in writing, after consultation with the Chairman-FTC, SecTrans, through his representative MARAD, and SecDef, through his representative the Commander. Although Participants may withdraw from this Agreement pursuant to Section VI.D, they remain subject to VISA as amended or modified until such withdrawal.
2. The Administrator, Commander and Participants may modify this Agreement at any time by mutual agreement, but only in writing with the approval of the Attorney General and the Chairman-FTC.
3. Participants may propose amendments to this Agreement at any time.
1. MARAD has primary responsibility for maintaining carrier VISA application records in connection with this Agreement. Records will be maintained in accordance with MARAD Regulations. Once a carrier is selected as a VISA Participant, a copy of the VISA application form will be forwarded to USTRANSCOM.
2. In accordance with 44 CFR 332.2(c), MARAD is responsible for the making and record maintenance of a full and verbatim transcript of each JPAG meeting. MARAD shall send this transcript, and any voluntary agreement resulting from the meeting, to the Attorney General, the Chairman-FTC, the Director-FEMA, any other party or repository required by law and to Participants upon their request.
3. USTRANSCOM shall be the official custodian of records related to the contracts to be used under this Agreement, to include specific information on enrollment of a Participant's capacity in VISA.
4. In accordance with 44 CFR 332.3(d), a Participant shall maintain for five (5) years all minutes of meetings, transcripts, records, documents and other data, including any communications with other Participants or with any other member of the industry or their representatives, related to the administration, including planning related to and implementation of Stage activations of this Agreement. Each Participant agrees to make such records available to the Administrator, the Commander, the Attorney General, and the Chairman-FTC for inspection and copying at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice. Any record maintained by MARAD or USTRANSCOM pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection shall be available for public inspection and copying unless exempted on the grounds specified in 5 U.S.C 552(b) or identified as privileged and confidential information in accordance with Section 708(e).
MARAD Shall Report to the Director-FEMA, as Required, on the Status and Use of This Agreement.
A. The JPAG provides USTRANSCOM, MARAD and VISA Participants a planning forum to:
1. Analyze DoD Contingency sealift/intermodal service and resource requirements.
2. Identify commercial sealift capacity that may be used to meet DoD requirements, related to Contingencies and, as requested by USTRANSCOM, exercises and special movements.
3. Develop and recommend CONOPS to meet DoD-approved Contingency requirements and, as requested by USTRANSCOM, exercises and special movements.
B. The JPAG will be co-chaired by MARAD and USTRANSCOM, and will convene as jointly determined by the co-chairs.
C. The JPAG will consist of designated representatives from MARAD, USTRANSCOM, each Participant, and maritime labor. Other attendees may be invited at the discretion of the co-chairs as necessary to meet JPAG requirements. Representatives will provide technical advice and support to ensure maximum coordination, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of Participants' resources. All Participants will be invited to all open JPAG meetings. For selected JPAG meetings, attendance may be limited to designated Participants to meet specific operational requirements.
1. The co-chairs may establish working groups within JPAG. Participants may be assigned to working groups as necessary to develop specific CONOPS.
2. Each working group will be co-chaired by representatives designated by MARAD and USTRANSCOM.
D. The JPAG will not be used for contract negotiations and/or contract discussions between carriers and DoD; such negotiations and/or discussions will be in accordance with applicable DoD contracting policies and procedures.
E. The JPAG co-chairs shall:
1. Notify the Attorney General, the Chairman-FTC, Participants and the maritime labor representative of the time, place and nature of each JPAG meeting.
2. Provide for publication in the
3. Establish the agenda for each JPAG meeting and be responsible for adherence to the agenda.
4. Provide for a full and complete transcript or other record of each meeting and provide one copy each of transcript or other record to the Attorney General, the Chairman-FTC, and to Participants, upon request.
F. Security Measures—The co-chairs will develop and coordinate appropriate security measures so that Contingency planning information can be shared with Participants to enable them to plan their commitments.
VISA may be activated at the request of the Commander, with approval of SecDef, as needed to support Contingency operations. Activating voluntary commitments of capacity to support such operations will be in accordance with prenegotiated Contingency contracts between DoD and Participants.
1. The Commander will notify the Administrator of the activation of Stages I, II, and III.
2. The Administrator shall notify the Attorney General and the Chairman-FTC when it has been determined by DoD that activation of any Stage of VISA is necessary to meet DoD Contingency requirements.
1. Throughout the activation of any Stages of this Agreement, DoD may utilize voluntary commitment of sealift capacity or systems.
2. Requests for volunteer capacity will be extended simultaneously to both Participants and other carriers. First priority for utilization will be given to Participants who have signed Stage I and/or II contracts and are capable of meeting the operational requirements. Participants providing voluntary capacity may request USTRANSCOM to activate their prenegotiated Contingency contracts; to the maximum extent possible, USTRANSCOM, where appropriate, shall support such requests. Volunteered capacity will be credited against Participants' staged commitments, in the event such stages are subsequently activated.
3. In the event Participants are unable to fully meet Contingency requirements, or do not voluntarily offer to provide the required capacity, the shipping capacity made available under VISA may be supplemented by ships/capacity from non-Participants.
4. When voluntary capacity does not meet DoD Contingency requirements, DoD will activate the VISA stages as necessary.
1. Stage I will be activated in whole or in part by the Commander, with approval of SecDef, when voluntary capacity commitments are insufficient to meet DoD Contingency requirements. The Commander will notify the Administrator upon activation.
2. USTRANSCOM will implement Stage I Contingency contracts as needed to meet operational requirements.
1. Stage II will be activated, in whole or in part, when Contingency requirements exceed the capability of Stage I and/or voluntarily committed resources.
2. Stage II will be activated by the Commander, with approval of SecDef, following the same procedures discussed in paragraph D above.
1. Stage III will be activated, in whole or in part, when Contingency requirements exceed the capability of Stages I and II, and other shipping services are not available. This stage involves DoD use of capacity and vessels operated by Participants which will be furnished to DoD when required in accordance with this Agreement. The capacity and vessels are allocated by MARAD on behalf of SecTrans to the Commander.
2. Stage III will be activated by the Commander upon approval by SecDef. Upon activation, SecDef will request SecTrans to allocate sealift capacity based on DoD requirements, in accordance with Title 1 of DPA, to meet the Contingency requirement. All Participants' capacity committed to VISA is subject to use during Stage III.
3. Upon allocation of sealift assets by SecTrans, through its designated representative MARAD, the Commander will negotiate and execute Contingency contracts with Participants, using pre-approved rate methodologies as established jointly by SecTrans and SecDef in fulfillment of section 46 U.S.C. 53107. Until execution of such contract, the Participant agrees that the assets remain subject to the provisions 46 U.S.C. 56301.
4. Simultaneously with activation of Stage III, the DoD Sealift Readiness Program (SRP) will be activated for those carriers still under obligation to that program.
As used in this Section V, activation “in part” of any Stage under this Agreement shall mean one of the following:
1. Activation of only a portion of the committed capacity of some, but not all, of the Participants in any Stage that is activated; or
2. Activation of the entire committed capacity of some, but not all, of the Participants in any Stage that is activated; or
3. Activation of only a portion of the entire committed capacity of all of the Participants in any Stage that is activated.
1. Any U.S.-flag vessel operator organized under the laws of a State of the United States, or the District of Columbia, may become a “Participant” in this Agreement by submitting an executed copy of the form referenced in Section VII, and by entering into a VISA Enrollment Contract with DoD which establishes a legal obligation to perform and which specifies payment or payment methodology for all services rendered.
2. The term “Participant” includes the entity described in VI.A.1 above, and all United States subsidiaries and affiliates of the entity which own, operate, charter or lease ships and intermodal equipment in the regular course of their business and in which the entity holds a controlling interest.
3. Upon request of the entity executing the form referenced in Section VII, the term “Participant” may include the controlled non-domestic subsidiaries and affiliates of such entity signing this Agreement, provided that the Administrator, in coordination with the Commander, grants specific approval for their inclusion.
4. Any entity receiving payments under the Maritime Security Program (MSP), pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310) (P.L. 112–239), shall become a “Participant” with respect to all vessels enrolled in MSP at all times until the date the MSP operating agreement would have terminated according to its original terms. The MSP operator shall be enrolled in VISA as a Stage III Participant, at a minimum. Such participation will satisfy the requirement for an MSP participant to be enrolled in an emergency preparedness program approved by SecDef as provided in 46 U.S.C. 53107.
5. A Participant shall be subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and not to the provisions of the SRP.
6. MARAD shall publish periodically in the
1. Each Participant agrees to provide commercial sealift and/or intermodal shipping services/systems in accordance with DoD Contingency contracts. USTRANSCOM will review and approve each Participant's commitment to ensure it meets DoD Contingency requirements. A Participant's capacity commitment to Stages I and II will be one of the considerations in determining the level of DoD peacetime contracts awarded with the exception of Jones Act capacity (as discussed in paragraph 4 below).
2. DoD may also enter into Contingency contracts, not linked to peacetime contract commitments, with Participants, as required to meet Stage I and II requirements.
3. Commitment of Participants' resources to VISA is as follows:
a. Stage III: A carrier desiring to participate in DoD peacetime contracts/traffic must commit no less than 50% of its total U.S.-flag capacity into Stage III. Carriers receiving DOT payments under the MSP, or carriers subject to Section 909 of Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, that are not enrolled in the SRP will have vessels receiving such assistance enrolled in Stage III. Participants' capacity under charter to DoD will be considered “organic” to DoD, and does not count towards the Participant's Contingency commitment during the period of the charter. Participants utilized under Stage III activation will be compensated based upon a DoD pre-approved rate methodology.
b. Stages I and II: DoD will annually develop and publish minimum commitment requirements for Stages I and II. Normally, the awarding of a long-term (i.e., one year or longer) DoD contract, exclusive of charters, will include the annual predesignated minimum commitment to Stages I and/or II. Participants desiring to bid on DoD peacetime contracts will be required to provide commitment levels to meet DoD-established Stage I and/or II minimums on an annual basis. Participants may gain additional consideration for peacetime contract cargo allocation awards by committing capacity to Stages I and II beyond the specified minimums. If the Participant is awarded a contract reflecting such a commitment, that commitment shall become the actual amount of a Participant's U.S.-flag capacity commitment to Stages I and II. A Participant's Stage III U.S.-flag capacity commitment shall represent its total minimum VISA commitment. That Participant's Stage I and II capacity commitments as well as any volunteer capacity contribution by Participant are portions of Participant's total VISA commitment. Participants activated during Stages I and II will be compensated in accordance with prenegotiated Contingency contracts.
4. Participants exclusively operating vessels engaged in domestic trades will be required to commit 50% of that capacity to Stage III. Such Participants will not be required to commit capacity to Stages I and II as a consideration of domestic peacetime traffic and/or contract award. However, such Participants may voluntarily agree to commit capacity to Stages I and/or II.
5. The Participant owning, operating, or controlling an activated ship or ship capacity will provide intermodal equipment and management services needed to utilize the ship and equipment at not less than the Participant's normal efficiency, in accordance with the prenegotiated Contingency contracts implementing this Agreement.
1. Participation in this Agreement is effective upon execution by MARAD of the submitted form referenced in Section VII, and approval by USTRANSCOM by execution of an Enrollment Contract, for Stage III, at a minimum.
2. VISA participation remains in effect until the Participant terminates the Agreement in accordance with paragraph D below, or termination of the Agreement in accordance with 44 CFR Sec. 332.4. Notwithstanding termination of VISA or participation in VISA, obligations pursuant to executed DoD peacetime contracts shall remain in effect for the term of such contracts and are subject to all terms and conditions thereof.
1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 below, a Participant may terminate its participation in VISA upon written notice to the Administrator. Such termination shall become effective 30 days after written notice is received, unless obligations incurred under VISA by virtue of activation of any Contingency contract cannot be fulfilled prior to the termination date, in which case the Participant shall be required to complete the performance of such obligations. Voluntary termination by a carrier of its VISA participation shall not act to terminate or otherwise mitigate any separate contractual commitment entered into with DoD.
2. A Participant having an MSP operating agreement with SecTrans shall not withdraw from this Agreement at any time during the original term of the MSP operating agreement.
3. A Participant's withdrawal, or termination of this Agreement, will not deprive a Participant of an antitrust defense otherwise available to it in accordance with DPA Section 708 for the fulfillment of obligations incurred prior to withdrawal or termination.
4. A Participant otherwise subject to the DoD SRP that voluntarily withdraws from this Agreement will become subject again to the DoD SRP.
Each Participant acknowledges and agrees to abide by all provisions of DPA Section 708, and regulations related thereto which are promulgated by the SecTrans, the Attorney General, and the Chairman-FTC. 46 CFR Part 340 establishes procedures for assigning the priority for use and the allocation of shipping services, containers and chassis. The JPAG will inform Participants of new and amended rules and regulations as they are issued in accordance with law and administrative due process. Although Participants may withdraw from VISA, they remain subject to all authorized rules and regulations while in Participant status.
1. When any Stage of VISA is activated or when DoD has requested volunteer capacity pursuant to Section V.B. of VISA, Participants may implement approved CCAs to meet the needs of DoD and to minimize the disruption of their services to the civil economy.
2. A CCA for which the parties seek the benefit of Section 708(j) of the DPA shall be identified as such and shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval and certification in accordance with Section 708(f)(1)(A) of the DPA. Upon approval and certification, the Administrator shall transmit the Agreement to the Attorney General for a finding in accordance with Section 708(f)(1)(B) of the DPA. Parties to approved CCAs may avail themselves of the antitrust defenses set forth in Section 708(j) of the DPA. Nothing in VISA precludes Participants from engaging in lawful conduct (including carrier coordination activities) that lies outside the scope of an approved Carrier
3. Participants may seek approval for CCAs at any time.
1. A list identifying the ships/capacity and intermodal equipment committed by a Participant to each Stage of VISA will be prepared by the Participant and submitted to USTRANSCOM within seven days after a carrier has become a Participant. USTRANSCOM will maintain a record of all such commitments. Participants will notify USTRANSCOM of any changes not later than seven days prior to the change.
2. USTRANSCOM will provide a copy of each Participant's VISA commitment data and all changes to MARAD.
3. Information which a Participant identifies as privileged or business confidential/proprietary data shall be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with Section 708(h)(3) and Section 705(e) of the DPA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and 44 CFR Part 332.
4. Enrolled ships are required to comply with 46 CFR Part 307, Establishment of Mandatory Position Reporting System for Vessels.
1. Where commercial war risk insurance is not available on reasonable terms and conditions, DOT shall provide non-premium government war risk insurance, subject to the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 53905.
2. Pursuant to 46 CFR 308.1(c), the Administrator (or DOT) will find each ship enrolled or utilized under this agreement eligible for U.S. Government war risk insurance.
1. Under the provisions of DPA Section 708, each carrier shall have available as a defense to any civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws (or any similar law of any State) with respect to any action taken to develop or carry out this Agreement, that such act was taken in the course of developing or carrying out this Agreement and that the Participant complied with the provisions of DPA Section 708 and any regulation thereunder, and acted in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2. This defense shall not be available to the Participant for any action occurring after termination of this Agreement. This defense shall not be available upon the modification of this Agreement with respect to any subsequent action that is beyond the scope of the modified text of this Agreement, except that no such modification shall be accomplished in a way that will deprive the Participant of antitrust defense for the fulfillment of obligations incurred.
3. This defense shall be available only if and to the extent that the Participant asserting it demonstrates that the action, which includes a discussion or agreement, was within the scope of this Agreement.
4. The person asserting the defense bears the burden of proof.
5. The defense shall not be available if the person against whom it is asserted shows that the action was taken for the purpose of violating the antitrust laws.
6. As appropriate, the Administrator, on behalf of SecTrans, and DoD will support agreements filed by Participants with the Federal Maritime Commission that are related to the standby or Contingency implementation of VISA.
Under the provisions of DPA Section 708, in any action in any Federal or State court for breach of contract, there shall be available as a defense that the alleged breach of contract was caused predominantly by action taken by a Participant during an emergency (including action taken in imminent anticipation of an emergency) to carry out this Agreement. Such defense shall not release the party asserting it from any obligation under applicable law to mitigate damages to the greatest extent possible.
1. VISA allows Participants the use of a VSA to utilize non-Participant U.S.-flag or foreign-owned and operated foreign flag vessel capacity as a substitute for VISA Contingency capability provided:
a. The foreign flag capacity is utilized in accordance with cargo preference laws and regulations.
b. The use of a VSA, either currently in use or a new proposal, as a substitution to meet DoD Contingency requirements is agreed upon by USTRANSCOM and MARAD.
c. The Participant carrier demonstrates adequate control over the offered VSA capacity during the period of utilization.
d. Service requirements are satisfied.
e. Participant is responsible to DoD for the carriage or services contracted for. Though VSA capacity may be utilized to fulfill a Contingency commitment, a Participant's U.S.-flag VSA capacity in another Participant's vessel shall not act in a manner to increase a Participant's capacity commitment to VISA.
2. Participants will apprise MARAD and USTRANSCOM in advance of any change in a VSA of which it is a member, if such changes reduce the availability of Participant capacity provided for in any approved and accepted Contingency Concept of Operations.
3. Participants will not act as a broker for DoD cargo unless requested by USTRANSCOM.
The Administrator, in coordination with the Commander has adopted the following form (“Application to Participate in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement”) on which intermodal ship operators may apply to become a Participant in this Agreement. The form incorporates, by reference, the terms of this Agreement.
The applicant identified below hereby applies to participate in the Maritime Administration's agreement entitled “Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement.” The text of said Agreement is published in ____
The applicant, if selected, hereby acknowledges and agrees to the incorporation by reference into this Application and Agreement of the entire text of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement published in ____
The Applicant, as a Participant, agrees to comply with the provisions of Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, the regulations of 44 CFR Part 332 and as reflected at 49 CFR Subtitle A, and the terms of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement. Further, the applicant, if selected as a Participant, hereby agrees to contractually commit to make specifically enrolled vessels or capacity, intermodal equipment and management of intermodal transportation systems available for use by the Department of Defense and to other Participants as discussed in this Agreement and the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The OCC has determined that the renewal of the charter of the OCC Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee (MSAAC) is necessary and in the public interest. The OCC hereby gives notice of the renewal of the charter.
The charter of the OCC MSAAC has been renewed for a two-year period effective October 6, 2014.
Donna Deale, Designated Federal Officer, 202–649–5420, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Notice of the renewal of the MSAAC charter is hereby given, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988). The Comptroller of the Currency has determined that the renewal of the MSAAC charter is necessary and in the public interest in order to provide advice and information to the OCC concerning the current condition of mutual savings associations, the regulatory changes or other steps the OCC may be able to take to ensure the health and viability of mutual savings associations, and other issues of concern to existing mutual savings associations, all in accordance with the goals of Section 5(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. 1464.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announces a meeting of the Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee (MSAAC).
A public meeting of the MSAAC will be held on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, beginning at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public may submit written statements to the MSAAC. The OCC must receive written statements no later than Thursday, November 13, 2014. Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting, and members of the public who require auxiliary aid, should contact the OCC by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, November 14, 2014, to inform the OCC of their desire to attend the meeting and to provide the information that will be required to facilitate aid.
The OCC will hold the November 18, 2014, meeting of the MSAAC at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Members of the public may submit written statements to
Donna Deale, Deputy Comptroller for Thrift Supervision, (202) 649–5420, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
By this notice, the OCC is announcing that the MSAAC will convene a meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, at the OCC's offices at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The meeting is open to the public and will begin at 8:00 a.m. EST. The purpose of the meeting is for the MSAAC to advise the OCC on the regulatory changes or other steps the OCC may be able to take to ensure the continued health and viability of mutual savings associations and other issues of concern to the existing mutual savings associations. The agenda includes a discussion of current topics of interest to the industry, including an update from OCC staff on current portfolio statistics, financial metrics and supervisory data on federal mutual savings associations.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule and 12-month finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a proposed rule and a 12-month finding on a petition to list the African lion (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before January 27, 2015. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; telephone, 703–358–2171; facsimile, 703–358–1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
Under the Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is found to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the Act, if a species is determined to be endangered or threatened we are required to publish in the
After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the African lion as threatened is warranted, and we announce a proposed rule to list the subspecies as threatened. We are also proposing a 4(d) rule to provide for conservation measures for the African lion.
We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the status of the subject species.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The subspecies' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Genetics and taxonomy;
(b) Historical and current range, including distribution;
(c) Historical and current population levels;
(d) Information pertaining to range countries' regulatory mechanisms, including specific laws and regulations pertaining to loss of habitat, loss of prey base, and human-lion conflict.
(e) Information pertaining to range countries' management plans, including information on management and implementation of hunting concessions, conservation measures in place for this subspecies and its habitat, community education and outreach programs that address lion conservation, revenue gained from trophy hunting and how it is allocated, and any information pertaining to long-term conservation of lions and their habitat and prey base; and
(f) Potential threats not already identified, such as extractive activities.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(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.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the subspecies and its habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists for peer review of this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the
Peer review is an important tool at our disposal to help evaluate the quality of the data and analyses we rely on in our decision making processes. The 1994 peer review policy commits us to soliciting the expert opinions of “appropriate and independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to taxonomy . . . for species under consideration for listing.” The policy also requires that our final decision must document the opinions of all the independent peer reviewers, and that all information regarding peer review be included in the administrative record. All proposed listing rules must be peer reviewed according to this policy and to applicable standards under the Service's guidelines for implementing the Information Quality Act and the December 15, 2004, Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.
On March 1, 2011, we received a petition dated the same day from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International, the Born Free Foundation/Born Free USA, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Fund for Animals requesting that the African lion subspecies be listed as endangered under the Act. The petition identified itself as such and included the information as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). On November 27, 2012, we published a “positive” 90-day finding (77 FR 70727) indicating that we would initiate a status review of the African lion. This document consists of our proposed rule and our determination on the status review for the African lion and publishes our finding. Our status review may be obtained at
The African lion (
In 2008, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified the African lion as vulnerable with a declining population trend, which means the species is considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild (Bauer
The African lion is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES (see
In an attempt to increase CITES protections for the African lion, in 2004, Kenya submitted a proposal for consideration at the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP13) to change the listing of the African lion from Appendix II of CITES to Appendix I (CoP13 Prop. 6;
Although Kenya had submitted its proposal to CoP13 for consideration, it withdrew its proposal due to the lack of regional consensus on the proposal. Furthermore, plans were under way at that time for convening a regional workshop on lion management in 2005, the results of which would be reported to the CITES Animals Committee (Animals Committee) (
Recognizing that lion workshops and other research had been completed, producing updated information on the conservation and status of this species, the Animals Committee, at its 25th Meeting (AC25) (Geneva, Switzerland, July 2011), agreed to include the African lion in the Periodic Review of Felidae [Decision 13.93 (Rev. CoP15)] (
The literature on African lion often includes reference to the following broad geographic regions: northern, western, central, southern, and eastern Africa. The boundaries of these regions vary somewhat among authors, based on the nature and result of the studies undertaken.
As reflected in the literature reviewed for this proposed rule, the lion conservation community generally works in the context of the regions of Africa as they are described in Table 1. The regions as described in Table 1 may vary somewhat from the descriptions of the regions that may be found in taxonomic and other research literature.
The lion is the second-largest extant cat species (second in size only to the tiger) and the largest carnivore in Africa. It has a broad geographical range, historically distributed throughout Africa (Ray
Characteristics include sharp, retractile claws, a short neck, a broad face with prominent whiskers, rounded ears and a muscular body. Lions are typically a tawny color with black on the backs of the ears and white on the abdomen and inner legs. Males usually have a mane around the head, neck and chest. Lions are sexually dimorphic, with males weighing about 20–27 percent more than females. Adult males, on average, weigh about 188 kg with the heaviest male
The lion (
Based on morphology, traditional classifications recognize anywhere from zero subspecies (classifying lions as one monotypic species) up to nine subspecies (Mazak 2010, p. 194, citing several sources). The most widely referenced of the morphology-based taxonomies is an eight-subspecies (six extant) classification provided by Hemmer (1974, in Nowell and Jackson 1996, p. 312; Barnett
In 1987, O'Brien (1987a, entire; 1987b, entire) reported the first results of genetic studies conducted on lion samples from some, but not all, regions of the species' range using early genetic techniques. Results indicated that lions in India differed from lions in Africa, supporting a two-subspecies classification for extant lions:
In recent years, several genetic studies have provided evidence of an evolutionary division within lions in Africa (see Barnett
These genetic studies on lion are based primarily on analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited only from the mother. Because lions display sex-biased dispersal, in which males leave their natal range and females tend to remain in their natal range, one would expect gene flow in females to be lower than in males, resulting in greater geographic differentiation in females (Mazak 2010, p. 204). Consequently, some authors state that results of mtDNA analyses should be backed up by studies on nuclear DNA (nDNA, inherited from both parents) and morphological traits before assigning taxonomic importance to them (Barnett
The recent results of genetic research have renewed debate on lion taxonomy among the experts. For this reason, the IUCN Species Survival Commission Cat Specialist Group has commissioned a Cat Classification Task Force from among its expert members to determine a consensus taxonomy for the group. Until then, we conclude that the taxonomy of the species is currently unresolved. However, as required by the Act, we base this status review on the best available scientific and commercial information, which is the most recent taxonomy that is the most widely recognized by taxonomic experts:
Historically, lions occupied most of the African continent except the West African coastal rainforest zone, the Congo Basin rainforest zone, and the inner Sahara Desert (Bauer 2003, in Ray
The African lion is now believed to be extirpated from between 75 and 83 percent of its former range (Table 2). The subspecies has been extirpated from all of its former range in northern Africa (Black
The
The general distribution of lions in Africa is summarized by Ray
Lions formerly occupied most of the African continent except for equatorial forest and the inner-Sahara. Today, they are extinct in North Africa and have undergone dramatic range retraction at the limits of their historical distribution. Currently, lions are restricted mainly to protected areas and surrounding conservancies or `game management areas,' with the largest populations in East and southern Africa. Where protection is poor, particularly outside protected areas, range loss or population decreases can be significant. Declines have been most severe in West and Central Africa, with only small, isolated populations scattered chiefly through the Sahel. Lions in the region are declining in some protected areas and, with the exception of southern Chad and northern Central African Republic, are virtually absent from unprotected areas (Bauer 2003).
Estimates of lion abundance on a large geographical scale are few in number. For a variety of reasons—including low densities, large ranges, cryptic coloration, nocturnal and wary habits—lions are difficult to count (Bauer
There have been few efforts in the past to estimate the number of lions in Africa. Myers (1975) wrote, “Since 1950, their [lion] numbers may well have been cut in half, perhaps to as low as 200,000 in all or even less.” Later, Myers (1986) wrote, “In light of evidence from all the main countries of its range, the lion has been undergoing decline in both range and numbers, often an accelerating decline, during the past two decades”. In the early 1990s, IUCN SSC Cat Specialist Group members made educated “guesstimates” of 30,000 to 100,000 for the African Lion population (Nowell and Jackson 1996).
Ferreras and Cousins (1996, entire) provided the first quantitatively derived estimate using a GIS-based model calibrated with information obtained from lion experts. Ferreras and Cousins predicted African lion abundance in 1980 to be 75,800. Later, four additional efforts—Chardonnet (2002), Bauer and Van Der Merwe (2004), IUCN (2006a, 2006b), and Riggio
In 2005–2006, in response to a growing concern that the African lion was in decline, IUCN and the Wildlife Conservation Society sponsored workshops to determine a lion conservation strategy. During these workshops, lion experts collectively assessed what they believed to be the then-current status of African lions based on a variety of information, including professional opinion. During the workshops, lion experts identified 86 African lion Conservation Units (LCUs). They defined LCUs as areas of known, occasional, or possible lion range that can be considered an ecological unit of importance for lion conservation (IUCN 2006a, p. 14; IUCN 2006b, p. 17). Of the 86 LCUs, 20 are in western and central Africa and 66 are in southern and eastern Africa (Table 4). Most (71 percent) have more than half their area under some form of legal protection (Bauer
Riggio
Riggio
The results of Riggio
Riggio
Riggio
Most of the strongholds and potential strongholds identified by Riggio
By definition, all 10 strongholds identified by Riggio
Based on the best available information, as discussed above, African lion range and numbers have clearly declined over the past several decades. However, not all African lion populations have declined—some have increased or remained stable (see Distribution and Abundance), and some have been restored to areas from which they were previously extirpated (Packer
Historically, the species occurred in all habitats in Africa, except rainforest and the hyper-arid interior of the Sahara (Ray
Lions are well studied. Much information exists on African lion habits, behavior, and ecology. CITES (2014a, p. 3) provides a general overview as follows:
Lions are generalist, cooperative hunters, with foraging preferences changing with season and with lion group size. Lions live in groups called “prides”, which are “fission-fusion” social units with a stable membership that sometimes divide into small groups throughout the range. Lions have no fixed breeding season. Females give birth every 20 months if they raise their cubs to maturity, but the interval can be as short as 4–6 weeks if their litter is lost. Gestation lasts 110 days, litter size ranges 1–4 cubs, and sex ratio at birth is 1:1. At about four years of age, females will have their first litter and males will become resident in a pride. Pride takeovers by male lions and subsequent infanticide of cubs sired by the ousted male lions greatly influences reproductive success. Lionesses defending their cubs from the victorious males are sometimes killed during the takeover. Infanticide accounts for 27 percent of cub mortality. Adult mortality is typically caused by humans, starvation, disease or attacks from other lions. Injury and death can also occur during hunting attempts on some of their larger prey.
Haas
Prides vary in size and structure, but typically contain 5–9 adult females (range, 1–18), their dependent offspring, and a coalition of 2–6 immigrant males (Heinsohn and Packer 1995; Packer
. . . Lion productivity (measured as number of surviving cubs) is limited by food. . . . Cub mortality is high in lions and is linked to periods of prey scarcity and infanticide by male lions during pride takeovers (Packer and Pusey 1983b; Schaller 1972; Van Orsdol
. . . Lions are mainly active at night . . . [They] usually hunt in groups; males hunt less frequently than do females, but males are stronger and can gain access to kills made by females (Bertram 1975a; Scheel and Packer 1991). Prey selection is related to seasonal weather patterns and the migration of large herbivores in some parts of Africa (Hanby
Lions are opportunistic hunters and scavengers. As scavengers, lions are dominant and can usually readily displace other predators from their kills (Packer 1986, Schaller 1972, in Haas
Lions are generalists and have been recorded to consume virtually every mammal species larger than 1 kg in their range, as well as a wide variety of larger reptiles and birds (Nowell & Jackson 1996; Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). The constraints of large physical size and extended social groups, however, bind them to large-bodied prey, and their diet is dominated by medium-large ungulates. In fact, only a few species of large ungulates comprise a majority of their diet wherever they occur (Schaller 1972; Stander 1992; Packer
Prey availability affects the reproduction, recruitment, and foraging behavior of lions and, as a result, strongly influences lion movements, abundance, and population viability (Winterbach
Availability of prey is perhaps the primary factor that determines the ranging behavior of large carnivores (Gittleman & Harvey 1982, Van Orsdol
Because lion home ranges can be very large, many protected areas are not large enough to sustain them (Winterbach
Habitat loss and degradation is reported to be among the main threats to African lions (IUCN 2006a, p. 18; Ray
Habitat destruction and degradation has been extensive throughout the range of the African lion, resulting in local and regional lion population extirpations, reduced lion densities, a dramatically reduced subspecies range (see Range), and small, fragmented, and isolated lion populations that are increasingly limited to protected areas (see Distribution and Abundance) (Ray
Growing human populations have been associated with declines in large carnivore populations all over the world, and high human density is strongly associated with local extirpation of large carnivores (Linnell
Based on a comparison of land-use and human population data, Riggio
Projections of future human population growth, area of conversion to agriculture, and livestock numbers in Africa suggest suitable lion habitat will continue to decrease into the foreseeable future. Africa has the fastest population growth rate in the world (UNEP 2012a, p. 2). Future population growth in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to be large and rapid (UN 2013, p. 9). Although urbanization is increasing in sub-Saharan Africa (UN 2014, p. 20), the majority of the population is rural, and about 60–70 percent of the population relies on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood (UNEP 2006, pp. 82, 100, 106; IAASTD 2009, p. 2). Much of the agriculture and livestock-raising is at subsistence level (IAASTD 2009, pp. 8, 28). As a result, a large portion of the growing population will depend directly on expansion of agriculture and livestock grazing to survive. Between 2010 and 2050 the population of sub-Saharan Africa is projected to more than double to more than 2 billion (from 831 million to 2.1 billion) (UN 2013, p. 9). During about this same time period (2005 to 2050), Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012, p. 107) project the area of cultivated land to increase by 51 million ha (approximately 21 percent). However, this figure does not include range land, and the majority of agricultural land in Africa is devoted to grazing (UNEP 2012b, p. 68). The number of livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats) in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to increase about 73 percent, from 688 million to 1.2 billion, by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012, p. 133).
Expansion of human settlements, agriculture, and/or livestock grazing are reported as occurring in or on the periphery of several of the areas identified by Riggio
Between 1990 and 2010, Kenya's human population grew from 23 million (40/km
The human populations of most other current and recent lion range countries are also expected to have very high growth rates (Table 7). It is important to note that the country-wide human population densities provided here (and in Table 7) are not directly comparable to the density thresholds determined by Riggio
In southern Africa, the extent of current habitat destruction and degradation appears to vary widely. For example, according to the Zambia Wildlife Authority (2009 pp. 4–5), unplanned human settlement and other land-use activities in game management areas are a major threat to the long-term survival of the lion in Zambia. They note that conversion of natural habitat in game management areas for cropping and grazing of livestock has led to habitat destruction and indicate that elimination of tsetse flies and subsequent increase in pastoralist activities in game management areas places the lion under renewed direct conflict with humans. On the other hand, according to Funston (2008, pp. 123–126), in several areas of southern Africa where lions were recently extirpated, lions are reestablishing as a result of, among other factors, adequate protection of habitat and prey. Human population growth, and resulting pressures exerted on habitat, are also expected to vary widely in the region. Population increases from 2010 to 2050 are projected to range from about 23 percent (South Africa) to well over 200 percent (Zambia), with 2050 densities in the region ranging from 5 people per km
In the past several decades the human population has been expanding with concomitant large decreases in lion habitat and lion populations, resulting in an extremely large reduction in the species' range. Habitat for African lion continues to be threatened with destruction, modification, and curtailment. Human populations are projected to increase dramatically in sub-Saharan Africa in coming decades. As human populations continue to rise in sub-Saharan Africa, the amount of land required to meet the expanding human population's needs is constantly increasing. In addition, as indicated above, lions are increasingly limited to protected areas, and human population growth rates around protected areas in Africa tend to be higher than the average rural growth rate (Wittemyer
Human-lion conflict and associated retaliatory killing of lions has played a major role in the reduction of lion populations (Lion Guardians 2013, p. 1; Lion Guardians 2011, p. 2; Hazzah and Dolrenry 2007, p. 21; Frank
Human-wildlife conflict stems from human population growth and the resulting overlap of humans and wildlife habitat (Chardonnet
The lion's prey base has decreased in many parts of its range for various reasons, but a large factor is due to competition for meat by humans. Humans in Africa rely on protein obtained from bushmeat, resulting in direct competition for prey between humans and lions, and commercial poaching of wildlife is becoming a significant threat to many species, including those that lions rely upon for food. Historically, subsistence hunting with spears was traditionally used to hunt wildlife, which had minimal impact to wildlife populations. Spears have since been replaced by automatic weaponry (Chardonnet
The human population in a majority of African countries within the range of the lion has quadrupled since the 1960s (Riggio
Further, the demand for agriculture to meet the increasing needs of a growing population has been met by intensified agricultural and livestock practices (Chardonnet
In Tanzania, which is home to more than 40 percent of the African lion population, conversion of rangeland to agricultural use has blocked several migratory routes for wildebeest and zebra populations, both lion prey species, which likely forces lions to rely more on livestock (Packer
Studies have shown variation in rates of livestock depredation with regional rainfall that correlate with prey availability, including changes in herding strategies, movement of prey, and movement of lions (Lion Guardians 2011, p. 6; Moghari 2009, p. 32; Hazzah 2006, pp. 17, 18; Patterson
Traditional livestock husbandry practices are effective at reducing depredation of livestock by lions (Chardonnet
Provoked attacks on humans are usually associated with someone approaching a lion too closely or trying to injure or kill it and stealing a lion's prey for bushmeat (Chardonnet
Competition with humans, habitat changes, and regional climate variations can decrease availability of prey and increase human-lion conflict. When native prey are unavailable or difficult to find and kill, lions will target domestic livestock or humans (Chardonnet
In areas of high conflict, identifying the responsible animal is often difficult, and a token animal may be killed instead (Hazzah 2006, p. 25), leaving the problem lion to continue to attack and the potential for additional retaliatory killings. In Tanzania, game officers kill numerous lions each year in retaliation for attacks (Frank
Several anthropogenic factors drive the level of resentment towards lions and the extent of retaliatory killing (Dickman 2013, pp. 379, 385), including the extent of the loss caused by the lions, and the wealth and security of the people affected (Dickman 2013, p. 381; Mesochina
Lions are particularly vulnerable to retributive killing because they are often driven by a perceived level of lion predation on livestock rather than actual levels of conflict. In some locations, other predators (e.g., baboons (
Cultural beliefs and traditions can have a negative impact on lions. Because cattle are of great cultural significance to Maasai, their loss can impose social or cultural costs and incite greater resentment and higher levels of retributive killing (Dickman 2013, p. 384; Kissui 2008, p. 429; Hazzah 2006, p. 99). In some areas of Africa, locals believe in “spirit lions”, a lion whose body is overtaken by evil to kill rivals or their livestock (West 2001 in Dickman 2013, pp. 381–382). Because people believe spirit lions are created by their enemies, the number of perceived spirit lions, and killing of these lions, increases during times of social tension (Dickman 2013, p. 382. The prohibition of ritual lion hunts provides a greater incentive for participating in retaliatory hunts (Packer
Social tensions within tribes and between local communities and other communities, the government, park officials, or tourists can lead to conflict and retributive killing of lions (Dickman 2013, p. 382; Hazzah 2006, p. 75). Locals often report that wildlife authorities do not react effectively when chronic livestock raiders are reported (Frank
Human-lion conflict and associated retaliatory killing of lions has played a major role in the reduction of lion populations and is the greatest threat to remaining lion populations. The most significant cause of human-lion conflict is livestock depredation and, to a lesser extent, attacks on humans. Expansion of human settlements and agricultural and pastoral activities into lion habitat, and even into protected areas, decreases prey availability and increases exposure of livestock and humans to lions.
The most common solution to lion attacks is retaliatory killing. Spearing, shooting, trapping, and poisoning of lions occur regularly. Although a majority of information on human-lion conflict comes from a few areas of the lion's range, we can reasonably conclude that lions are being killed due to conflict in all major range countries, because of their depredation on livestock (Frank
Impacts on victims of lion attacks create resentment towards lions and lion conservation, and a greater likelihood of retaliation. Even when lions are not the predators responsible for the majority of attacks, lions incite a greater response and are killed more often than other predators of livestock.
In areas of high human density and low lion density, mainly in smaller reserves and outside large protected areas, lion populations may not be sustainable. Attacks on humans can impact long-term viability for lions as people who fear for their lives or safety are unlikely to support conservation actions and are more likely to retaliate by killing any lions found near settlements (Frank
Human population growth within the lion's range is projected to be 2.1 billion by 2050 (UN 2012, p. 2). The number of livestock within the lion's range is projected to increase by about 73 percent by 2050 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2012, p. 133). Given this expected increase in humans and livestock by 2050, we conclude the conditions described above will continue to worsen to the point that African lions will likely be at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future. As livestock numbers increase, expansion of agricultural and pastoral practices continue, and the lion's prey base is hunted at unsustainable levels to meet a growing demand for food, livestock depredation and retributive killing of lions will likely increase (Dickman 2013, p. 379; Hoppe-Dominik
Retaliatory killing of lions continue in many areas and this practice impacts the viability of lion populations throughout its range. The killing of lions due to human-lion conflict is enough to result in the local extirpation of lion populations, though at present does not place the subspecies in danger of extinction. Human-lion conflict is exacerbated by an increasing human population, the expansion of human settlements, loss of prey base due to the bushmeat trade and expanding agriculture, as well as increasing pressures on natural resources to meet the needs of the growing human population. We expect retaliatory killings due to human-lion conflict to continue to increase into the foreseeable future. We conclude based on the best available scientific and commercial information that the continuation of this
Wild lions are known to be infected with various pathogens (Hunter
Feline calicivirus, feline herpesvirus, feline parvovirus, feline coronavirus, and feline leukemia virus are endemic viruses known to occur in lions of Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Crater, Lake Manyara National Park, Kruger National Park, and Etosha National Park (but not all viruses are known in all parks). However, these diseases are not known to affect lion survival (Hunter
Lions within Kruger National Park and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, South Africa, and Serengeti National Park, Tanzania, are known to be infected with
The social behavior of buffalo and lions allows
Clinical signs of bTB in lions include: emaciation, respiratory complications, swollen lymph nodes, draining sinuses, ataxia, and lameness (Keet
Epidemics of canine distemper virus (CDV) are known to have occurred in the Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem, an area that encompasses the Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and Maasai Mara National Reserve (Craft 2008, pp. 13–14; Cleaveland
CDV generally lacks clinical signs or measurable mortality in lions, and most CDV events have been harmless. However, in 1994 and 2001, CDV epidemics in the Serengeti National Park/Maasai Mara National Reserve and Ngorongoro Crater, respectively, resulted in unusually high mortality rates (Hunter
Exposure to either CDV or
Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is an endemic pathogen in many lion populations of southern and eastern Africa (Maas
FIV causes immune deficiencies that allow for opportunistic infections in the host (Brown
Infection with a single disease does not appear to have detrimental impacts on lions, although general body condition, health, and lifespan may be compromised. Co-infections, however, could have synergistic effects that lead to greater impacts on lions than a single infection. Lions impacted by the 1994 CDV outbreak in Serengeti National Park/Maasai Mara National Reserve may have been more susceptible to CDV due to depleted immunity caused by FIV (O'Brien
Although disease is known in several populations, the impacts are known in only a couple of populations where disease has been frequently studied. Disease can be a factor in the decline of lions when combined with other factors, including environmental changes, reduced prey density, and inbreeding depression. However, this type of impact has been observed in some small populations that are at a higher risk, but has not been observed at the species population level. Therefore, we conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that disease is not a significant threat to the species.
The risk of extinction is related to the moment when a declining population becomes a small population and is often estimated using minimum viable population (MVP) sizes (Traill
Some scientists believe that the minimum viable population size (MVP) to maintain genetic viability is between 500 and 5,000 individuals, although this estimate is not specific to lion (Bijlsma and Loeschcke 2012, p. 122; Traill
Increasing human population growth between now and 2050 will continue to decrease and fragment large areas of habitat needed to support viable lion populations and disrupt dispersal routes for genetic exchange. Additionally, as the human population grows and lion populations decline, as discussed above, more lion populations could reach levels below the suggested minimum of 10 prides to maintain genetic diversity, putting more populations at risk of inbreeding and extirpation. Therefore, we conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that small population sizes currently pose a threat to the species.
Trophy hunting (also known as sport hunting) has been identified by the petitioners as one of the factors contributing to the decline of African lions (Petition 2011, p. 24). Lions are a key species in sport hunting as they are considered one of the “big five” (lion, leopard, elephant, rhino, and cape buffalo), touted to be the most challenging species to hunt, due to their nimbleness, speed, and behavioral unpredictability (Lindsey
As of May 2014, approximately 18 countries in Africa permit lions to be hunted for trophies: Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa (RSA), Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. However, in 2013 lion trophy hunting was only documented to occur in nine countries, specifically Benin, Burkina Faso, CAR, Mozambique, Namibia, RSA, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Lindsey 2013, personal communication). Four countries, Burundi, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, and Swaziland, provide no legal protection for lions (CITES 2014a, p. 14).
In response to growing international recognition of reduced population numbers, many countries began implementing moratoriums banning the sport hunting of lions. In this document we use the terms moratorium and ban interchangeably. A ban or moratorium can be permanent, long term, or temporary, and can occur in countries that have hunting quotas in place. Having both a moratorium and a quota in place at the same time means that, although the country may have a hunting quota, the country has halted authorization of trophy hunting pursuant to that quota until some later date or until some further action is taken, as prescribed by that country. Therefore, you will see us refer to countries like Zambia and Botswana, each of which has hunting quotas and bans in place. Trophy hunting is currently banned in 12 countries: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon,
A scientifically based “quota” is the maximum number of a given species that can be removed from a specific population without damaging the biological integrity and sustainability of that population (World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 1997, p. 9). For a quota to be scientifically based, it must be based upon available monitoring data of the species. Although varying by country and by economic resources, monitoring data used to determine quotas have included, but are not limited to, past hunting off-take records, trophy quality data, ground transect surveys, wildlife ranger and safari operator input, the species' reproductive biology, and aerial population census data, although usually aerial data is limited to species that can be easily observed from the air, such as elephants and buffalo (Barnett & Patterson 2005, p. 102). Generally, the conservation principle behind scientifically based quotas is to limit
In order for scientifically based quotas to result in offtake less than the growth rate of target specimens, many factors are evaluated including the species' biological factors (reproductive rate, gender, age, and behavior), as well as community and client objectives (WWF 1997, pp. 14–19). Each quota should be then assigned to a geographical area and/or population based on this information. Thus, for lions, a scientifically based quota defines the specific number of lions that can be removed from a specific geographical area and population, for any purpose, within a particular year. Scientifically based quotas do not apply solely to sport hunting, but set the limits for all offtake for a particular year; other potential offtake includes problem-animal control (to reduce human-wildlife conflict), translocation (to expand conservation), culling (reducing population pressures), and local hunting (for protein/meat or employment) (WWF 1997, pp. 8–10).
While each of these uses offers advantages and disadvantages, quotas are typically utilized only for sport hunting, as it may provide the highest all-around benefits to local communities. For example, a portion of a quota could be used to kill a problem animal; the benefits to the community would then include the use of the animal parts for meat or trade and it would theoretically reduce the conflict. However, this provides a more limited economic benefit to the community than would selling the same quota for trophy hunting, which could potentially eliminate the problem animal, provide meat and parts for trade, and provide revenue for the community (WWF 1997, pp. 31–33).
There are two primary types of quotas, “fixed” and “optional.” Trophy fees for “optional” quotas are paid only when the lion is shot, whereas, “fixed” quotas require the payment of a portion (40–100 percent) of the lion trophy fee, regardless of whether the hunt is successful. Until 1999, male lions were typically on “fixed” quotas, whereas female lions were under “optional” quotas. Due to this approach, trophies collected in the 1990's were often of lower quality, younger, less desirable male lions, as operators and hunters had no incentive to be selective (e.g. the hunter had already paid for it). Therefore, current recommendation for all quotas is to be the “optional” type (Lindsey
Two primary concerns have been raised by the scientific and international community with regards to current lion quotas. Specifically, that existing quotas are set above sustainable levels and the data used for setting quotas is inconsistent and not scientifically based (Hunter
Throughout the countries in Africa, most appear to have reduced their offtake considerably since the 1990's. According to Packer
Regardless of these reductions, many stakeholders consider the quota system to be outdated and ineffective because it does not address the biological and social impacts of trophy hunting on lion prides. Opponents also state that trophy hunting affects the social structure of the pride and results in increased infanticide of lion cubs. This supposition is inconclusive and not well supported (CITES 2014a, p. 14; Dagg 2000, pp. 831–835) (See Infanticide and Age-based Hunting Strategies). Regardless, since 2006, researchers have recommended the implementation of age-based hunting strategies; these are discussed below (Packer
Five countries maintain quotas to allow for approximately 6–15 lion trophies to be taken per year: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Below is a summary of estimated annual hunting quotas for the African lion:
Although each country has its own method of regulating trophy hunting, international trade of lion trophies must adhere to CITES (see Conservation Status). International trade of lion parts and products (including trophies) are reported by both the exporting and importing countries and tracked by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP–WCMC). The international trade data on the African lion that has been compiled in the CITES UNEP–WCMC Trade Database is extensive. Therefore, it is likely that the actual numbers of African lion parts and products in international trade is slightly smaller than what we have reported using the UNEP–WCMC “gross exports” report (CITES lion gross exports,
In 2012, the most recent year for which CITES trade data are available, U.S. CITES Annual Report trade data indicated that the United States allowed the direct import of African lion trophies from eight African countries, as follows:
According to the CITES UNEP–WCMC database, between 2005 and 2012, exports of lion trophies have demonstrated a decreasing trend when exports of captive-born lions from South Africa are excluded (CITES lion gross exports,
Here it should be noted that there are limitations to interpreting the above reported information. The 2004 guide to using the CITES Trade Database indicates that the outputs produced by the CITES Trade Database can be easily misinterpreted if one is not familiar with it (CITES 2004b, p. 5). The number of “trophies” reported does not necessarily equate to the number of lions hunted. Additionally, the number of trophies reported for a given year in the trade report does not equate directly to the number of animals hunted in that given year (CITES export permits may be valid for 6 months, and a trophy could in theory be exported the year after it was hunted). The second limitation to interpreting this information is, although many permits may indicate that an animal is of wild origin (source code “W”), these permits may be incorrectly coded. This is true for South Africa, where during the period of 2000 to 2009, animals that were captive-born and released into private reserve systems were assigned an incorrect source code of “wild.” South Africa has since requested their provincial authorities to use the correct source code for “captive bred” in order to correctly reflect the source of sport-hunted lion trophies; however, some provinces are still not complying (RSA 2013, pp. 8–9). However, based on South African trade data, the bulk of the exports of lions and their parts and products (including trophies) from South Africa were from captive-born lions (RSA 2013, p. 7).
Tanzania, with the highest lion populations (Hamunyela
In other areas within the range of the African lion, the number of lions hunted or authorized to be hunted annually has remained fairly consistent. In Burkina Faso, approximately 12 lions per year have been hunted over the past two decades (IUCN 2009, pp. 36–37; Bauer and Nowell 2004, p. 36), although their current annual quota is 6 animals. In Botswana, a quota of 30 lions per year was authorized for nearly two decades; however, Botswana has recently implemented a hunting moratorium (Jackson 2013, p. 8). (CITES lion gross exports,
Tourist safari hunting of males has been suggested by the petitioners to increase infanticide rates (when males kill young lion cubs sired by other males) (Petition 2011, p. 24; Whitman
While utilizing individual-based simulation models, Whitman
In addition to quota-setting, moratoriums, and the 6 year age limit, it has been reported that more protective standards and guidelines are implemented, such as the best practices listed below (Jackson 2013, pp. 3, 8–10, Dallas Safari Club 2013, pp. 1–2).
• Minimum trophy quality, sizes, and standards;
• Wildlife hunting regulations enacted and enforced;
• Professional hunting associations formed;
• Professional hunting training courses;
• Professional hunter standards established;
• Quota-setting procedures;
• Compliance with CITES demonstrated;
• Monitoring; and
• Information and data collection and analysis.
While the supposition of increased infanticide due to the remove of established males from a pride is inconclusive and not well supported, it is clear that improved management practices are beneficial to maintaining viable lion populations. Developing and implementing best management practices, while not categorically establishing a direct correlation with increased population numbers and health, do appear to have practical impacts on lion populations. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, infanticide, as a result of the removal of lions through hunting, is not a threat to African lions. Further, it is not likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future since the science is not well supported as to whether infanticide resulting from offtake due to trophy hunting is a significant threat to the subspecies (Whitman
Corruption is common in some areas within the range of the African lion, particularly in areas with extreme poverty (Michler 2013, pp. 1–3; Kimati 2012, p. 1; Garnett
Corruption has complex roots and will not end immediately, but from all appearances, it is being addressed in many of the African lion range countries where it has occurred in the past. Countries throughout the range of the African lion are putting tools in place to combat corruption and create awareness (
Provided that countries continue to address corruption within the wildlife sector, we conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that corruption, in and of itself, does not currently pose a threat to the species. However, if efforts to address corruption do not continue, it could become a threat to African lions in the future.
The high value of lions makes them one of the most expensive large game species to hunt. The revenue derived from lion hunting is substantial. Lions are reported to generate the highest daily rate of any mammal hunted (USD $2,650 per day), the longest number of days that must be booked, and the highest trophy fee ($24,500) (Jackson 2013, p. 6; Lindsey
The concept of using trophy hunting to support lion conservation is complex and counterintuitive to many. Many range countries rely heavily on tourism (predominantly ecotourism and safari hunting) to provide funding for wildlife management (IUCN 2006a, p. 24). The countries that rely most on lion hunting are proportionally the highest in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia (Lindsey
Proponents and most species experts support trophy hunting as a conservation tool for the African lion (Hunter 2011, entire; van der Merwe 2013, entire; Hunter
In Botswana, despite the current ban on lion hunting, the country currently has over 128,000 km
Cost estimates for maintaining lion populations range, from an annual budget of $500 per km
Land invasions, resettlement and political instability has had dire consequences for wildlife occurring in the commercial sector. Land invasions have affected all wildlife management activities, and resulted in severe habitat destruction, increased poaching and infrastructure damage with thousands of kilometers of fences being destroyed to make wire snares . . . A typical questionnaire response from an invaded 50,000 acre farm in Masvingo Province . . . indicates substantial poaching losses of up to $1,819,040, with over 3,400 snares recovered and 134 poachers arrested in just two months.
Niassa National Reserve, Mozambique, incurs annual costs of approximately $1.9–2 million to maintain a 42,000-km
Trophy hunting of lions, if part of a scientifically based management program, can provide direct benefits to the species and its habitat, both at the national and local level (See: Role of Local Communities in Lion Conservation). Trophy hunting and the revenue generated from trophy hunting are tools that range countries can use to facilitate maintaining habitat to sustain large ungulates and other lion prey, protecting habitat for lions, supporting the management of lion habitat, and protecting both lions and their prey base through anti-poaching efforts. While hunting alone will not address all of the issues that are contributing to the declined status of the species, it can provide benefits to the species.
Over the last few decades, conservationists and range countries have realized the integral role local communities play in the conservation of lions and their habitat; when communities benefit from a species,
Studies have indicated that, in order for species such as the African lion to persist, the local communities must benefit from or receive a percentage of funds generated from tourism such as wildlife viewing, photography, or trophy hunting (White 2013, p. 21; Martin 2012, p. 57; Kiss [editor] 1990, pp. 1, 5–15). The economic value of a species, such as lion, can encourage range countries to develop management and conservation programs that involve local communities which would ultimately discourage indiscriminate killings by local communities (Groom 2013, pp. 3, 5; Hazzah
Community conservancies that benefit from trophy hunting have specifically been formed as a way to protect wildlife and habitat. As an example, in Namibia, 160,000 km
Trophy hunting as part of a scientifically based management program may provide direct economic benefits to the local communities and can create incentives for local communities to conserve lions, reduce the pressure on lion habitat, and end retaliatory killing, primarily because lions are viewed as having value. Conversely, lack of incentives could cause declines in lion populations because lions are viewed as lacking value and are perceived to kill livestock, which do have value to communities (see Human-lion Conflict).
Many range countries have realized local communities must benefit from the conservation of the species because [why?] and have revised their land management and ownership policies to reflect this. Of the ten countries where lion trophy hunting currently occurs (including Cameroon), seven have developed National Poverty Reduction Strategies in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (for a complete list, see
In analyzing threats to a species, the Service focuses its analysis on threats acting upon wild specimens within the native range of the species, because the goal of the Act is survival and recovery of the species within its native ecosystem. We do not separately analyze “threats” to captive-held specimens because the statutory five factors under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1533) are not well-suited to consideration of specimens in captivity and captive-held specimens are not eligible for separate consideration for listing. However, we do consider the extent to which specimens held in captivity create, contribute to, reduce, or remove threats to the species.
Captive-held African lions, including those that are managed for trophy hunting in South Africa and lions held in captivity in zoos, are believed to number between a few thousand and 5,000 worldwide (Republic of South Africa 2013, p. 5; Barnett
Although there is some indication that trophy hunting could contribute to
Currently, most countries that allow trophy hunting of lions appear to be reviewing their trophy hunting practices (Jackson 2013, pp. 2–3; White 2013, pp. 12–13). Range countries have recognized the need to incorporate best management practices, and have been progressively updating the policies and management systems in order to implement them (Lindsey
Finally, we found that, if trophy hunting of lions is part of a scientifically based management program, it could provide considerable benefits to the species, by reducing or removing incentives by locals to kill lions in retaliation for livestock losses, and by reducing the conversion of lion habitat to agriculture. Trophy hunting, if managed well and with local communities in mind, can bring in needed revenue, jobs, and a much-needed protein source to local people, demonstrating the value of lions to local communities (Groom 2013, pp. 1–3; Lindsey
Therefore, we conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial information available, that trophy hunting is not a significant threat to the species.
CITES (2014, p. 8) reports that many African countries, including Somalia, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Kenya, and Cameroon, maintain local markets in lion products, which include teeth, claws, fat, whiskers, bone, bile, testicles, meat, and tails for use as talismans, decorations, and in traditional African medicine. In Ghana, lion parts and products are used for ceremonial, medicinal, and nutritional purposes (Burton
There has been awareness for several years that conservation strategies need to be implemented for the African lion due to the apparent decrease in its population numbers (Hamunyela
Many countries with very small lion populations have developed or updated their conservation plans for the African lion. Some of these include Benin, Cameroon, Uganda, and Malawi. Some range countries participate in transboundary conservation projects and are collaborating on transboundary lion conservation initiatives for shared lion populations. Most range countries have a national lion action plan or strategies in place, particularly if there are economic incentives for them to have viable lion populations (Groom 2013; Nghidinwa
Habitat loss represents one of the main threats facing the African lion (Bauer
Two conservation tools utilized by range countries for African lions include the establishment of protected areas and the enforcement of protections in these areas (Mesochina
Despite encroachment, protected areas are somewhat effective at protecting wildlife and habitat as rates of habitat loss tend to be lower in protected areas than outside them (Green
Another mechanism for protecting habitat is to reconnect fragmented habitat across national boundaries. Corridors are being restored, fences are being removed, and protected areas are being connected. Restoration of these corridors allows wildlife to travel between areas of suitable habitat (Jones
Tanzania is an example of a country attempting to reconnect habitat. As of 2002, the Tanzanian Government, with donor and NGO support, was reconnecting the nine largest blocks of forest in the East Usambara Mountains using wildlife corridors (Newmark 2002, various). Additionally, the 2009 Wildlife Act of Tanzania allows the Minister, in consultation with relevant local authorities, to designate wildlife corridors, dispersal areas, buffer zones, and migratory routes. The 2010–2015 National Elephant Management Plan of Tanzania indicates that corridors are the primary objective of the plan, and although primarily designed for elephants, these corridors allow for continuity of populations of other large mammal species such as lions (Jones
In 2011, Kenya (which neighbors Tanzania to the North), completed a 28-km corridor through an area that had been heavily impacted by human-wildlife conflict. The purpose of the corridor was primarily to reduce human-elephant conflict and appears to have been successful (Mount Kenya Trust 2011, p. 1). The corridor also allows other wildlife such as lions to disperse through habitat that otherwise would have been unfavorable for wildlife to travel through (Mount Kenya Trust 2011, p. 1). It was an expensive project, but recent reports indicate that the effort has served its purpose: Elephants are using the corridor on a regular basis (particularly an underpass under a highway), and humans are reporting less human-wildlife conflict (Mount Kenya Trust 2011, p. 1).
However, connectivity alone does not ensure the dispersal of animals (Roever
Lions, like most large carnivores, prey upon a variety of species including buffalo, plains zebra, wildebeest, giraffe, gemsbok, kob, and warthog (Kenya Wildlife Service 2013, p. 13; Niassa National Reserve Technical Report 2011, p. 4; Nowell and Jackson 1996, p. 18). Depletion of these prey species due to competition with humans represents a threat to the lion (Chardonnet
Reconnecting fragmented habitat has the additive effects of not only conserving the biodiversity of the African lion's habitat, but also that of its prey base (Lindsey
Studies compiled by Huzzah 2013 (pp. 1, 8) have shown that local communities who lived near protected areas with more lenient policies have a more positive attitude and relationship with both the manager and the protected area as a whole. This open approach to protected area management reflects a trend in recent years to bring in local communities to assist in the management of protected areas (Lindsey
One such program is the Chivaraidze Game Ranch in Zimbabwe (van Villet 2011, pp. 28–29). The Chivaraidze Game Ranch started in 1996 with the stated goal of reducing poaching through providing bushmeat at a reduced price. However, internal infighting in the organization over the devolution of power to local communities, between those in favor of devolution and a powerful local interest group, limited the effectiveness of the organization. In the span of 8 years (between 2001 and 2009), the Chivaraidze Game Ranch has had six different boards of directors (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2010, p. 5). Furthermore, a power shake-up in local communities along party lines and kinship affiliation limited the abilities for communities to cooperate with each other (van Villet 2011, pp. 28–29; Mombeshora and Le Bel 2010, p. 7). The result was that the cost of maintaining the program exceeded the benefits to the local community. The decline in economic benefits to the local community coincided with a resurgence in poaching within areas of the park (Mombeshora and Le Bel 2010, p. 3). The result of the Chivaraidze Game Ranch project reflects the difficulty in shifting wildlife management from a centralized national government approach towards a more decentralized, community-based approach.
Unlike the difficulties encountered in Zimbabwe, Namibia has had greater success in setting up community-run conservancies. After gaining independence in 1990, Namibia began to turn over ownership of wildlife areas to local communities (van Vliet 2011, p. 29; Bandyopadhyay
As the human population expands, the potential for conflict with wildlife increases. In Africa, conflict between villagers and lions, who prey upon livestock, represent a threat to the species (Chardonnet
Historically, range countries seek to mitigate human-lion conflict through controlling rather than conserving the predator population. In countries such as Malawi, for example, the Department of Game, Fish and Tsetse Control would shoot large carnivores that prey upon livestock. The result of this policy was that, between 1948 and 1961, over 560 predators (which include lions and leopards) were killed in the country (Mesochina
Current governmental management of lions in countries such as Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia are managed by the Problem Animal Control units (Mesochina
NGOs are also assisting in protecting lions. Intervention by NGOs often takes the form of interacting with the local community (Winterbach
We found that many of the lion range states are trying to address lion conservation through the establishment of protected areas, wildlife management areas, wildlife corridors, and reconnecting habitat. In some areas, creating incentives for lion conservation is occurring through community conservation programs in range countries. In other cases, participatory strategies have been implemented to enhance local tolerance for large carnivores in Africa. An increasing number of programs encourage local communities to solve problems that arise from human-lion conflict without killing lions. However, the effectiveness of these measures still ranges from successful to unsuccessful, due in part to lack of resources, political will, and infighting. It is imperative that range countries continue to recognize and support the role that local communities play in lion conservation. Greater support by countries to address the needs of local communities, and thereby address the needs of lions, may be the single-most important role these countries can play in changing the trajectory of lion declines.
Regulatory mechanisms in place to provide protections to African lions vary substantially throughout Africa. As mentioned in the Conservation Status of African Lions CITES section, lions are listed in Appendix II under CITES, and with the exception of South Sudan, all of the lion range states are parties to CITES. According to the draft CITES Periodic Review of the Status of African Lions (CITES 2014a, pp. 14–15) outside of CITES, lions have no legal protections in four countries: Burundi, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, and Swaziland. However, CITES 2014a (p. 15), states that most of the southern and eastern lion range states have regulatory mechanisms in place to protect lions. We found that most of the range states have national environmental legislation to establish national parks and conservation areas, and to conserve and regulate the take, hunting, and trade of wildlife, including parts and products, but could find no legislation specific to lions, nor to the main threats affecting lions: habitat loss, human-lion conflict, and loss of prey base (See: Appendix A, Ecolex information was accessed July 7–10, 2014, at
Our status review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place that specifically address the main threats affecting lions. We are requesting comments or information from lion range states, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested parties concerning regulatory mechanisms that address the three main threats to lions: habitat loss, human-lion conflict, and loss of prey base.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, and/or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As noted in the Information Requested section, a species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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;
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In assessing whether the African lion meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species, we considered the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species is “endangered” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The “foreseeable future” is the period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends extrapolated.
When considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. We conducted a review of the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the status of the African lion and assessed whether the African lion is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range.
There is consensus within the research community as well as lion range states that the African lion is impacted by a number of factors actively contributing to its population decline throughout Africa: habitat loss (fragmentation and degradation) (Factor A); decreased access to food prey sources (aka loss of prey base) (Factor B); retaliatory killing, snaring, and poaching (both intentional and unintentional), and deleterious effects in its viability due to small populations in some areas within its range (Factor E) (Nyanganji
We find three main threats, habitat loss, loss of prey base, and human-lion conflict, are impacting lions, alone and in combination, such that the subspecies is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. In the past several decades, the human population has been expanding with concomitant large decreases in lion habitat and likely lion numbers, resulting in an extremely large reduction in the species' range. As human populations continue to rise in sub-Saharan Africa, the amount of land required to meet the expanding human population's needs is constantly increasing. Lions are increasingly limited to protected areas, and human population growth rates around protected areas in Africa tend to be higher than the average rural growth rate (Wittemyer
Africa has the fastest population growth rate in the world (UNEP 2012a, p. 2). The majority of the population is rural, and about 60–70 percent of the population relies on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood (UNEP 2006, pp. 82, 100, 106; IAASTD 2009, p. 2). As a result, a large portion of the growing population will depend directly on expansion of agriculture and livestock grazing to survive in the future. Between 2010 and 2050, the population of sub-Saharan Africa is projected to more than double to more than 2 billion (from 831 million to 2.1 billion) (UN 2013, p. 9). During about this same time period (2005 to 2050), the area of cultivated land is projected to increase by 51 million ha (approximately 21 percent) (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012, p. 107). However, this figure does not include rangeland, and the majority of agricultural land in Africa is devoted to grazing (UNEP 2012b, p. 68), thus that figure may be much larger. The number of livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats) in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to increase about 73 percent, from 688 million to 1.2 billion, by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012, p. 133). Therefore, in the case of African lion, the best available scientific and commercial data that we rely upon in projecting future conditions for the purpose of this listing determination establish the foreseeable future to be 2050.
Human settlements and agricultural and pastoral activities have expanded into lion habitat and protected areas, decreasing prey availability and increasing exposure of livestock and humans to lions. Human-lion conflict and associated retaliatory killing of lions will continue to play a major role in the reduction of lion populations and is the greatest current threat to remaining lion populations. The lion's prey base has decreased in many parts of its range in large part due to the bushmeat trade
Bushmeat is the primary source of protein for humans in much of the lion's range (Chardonnet
Lion range countries are aware of the threats affecting lions, and many are working to address them. NGOs and several governments at various levels have organized regional lion conservation workshops, which have helped them to identify Lion Conservation Units. Most range countries have a national lion action plan or strategy in place (Groom 2013; Nghidinwa
Range states have also implemented a number of conservation strategies designed to conserve habitat, reduce human-lion conflict, and preserve lion
Studies have shown that local communities who live near protected areas (PAs) with community-based conservation policies have more positive attitudes and relationships with both the park manager and the PA as a whole (Huzzah 2013, pp. 1, 8). This open approach to PA management reflects a trend in recent years to bring in local communities to assist in the management of PAs (Lindsey
Finally, many range countries rely heavily on tourism (predominantly ecotourism and safari hunting) to provide funding for wildlife management (IUCN 2006a, p. 24). The revenue generated from these industries can be critical to fund wildlife management programs in range states. Tourism, through ecotourism and trophy hunting, can provide jobs to locals (such as game guards, cooks, drivers, security personnel) and often brings in revenue for local microbusinesses that sell art, jewelry, and other native crafts. Lions can generate the highest daily rate of any mammal hunted (USD $2,650 per day), the longest number of days that must be booked, and the highest trophy fee ($24,500) (Jackson 2013, p. 6; Lindsey
Revenue from scientifically based management programs that include trophy hunting can increase the ability of many African countries to manage wildlife populations both within and adjacent to reserves; many of these hunting areas are geographically linked to national parks and reserves, providing wildlife corridors and buffer zones (Chardonnet
In Tanzania, which is home to 40 percent of all lions, land set aside for sport hunting purposes has resulted in an area 5.1 times greater than Tanzania's fully protected and gazetted parks (Jackson 2013, p. 6; Barnett & Patterson 2005, p. 61). In Botswana, despite the current ban on lion hunting, the country currently has more than 128,000 km
Within its current range, the African lion exists in 10 stronghold populations containing approximately 24,000 lions (70 percent of the current African lion population), 19,000 of which are in protected areas, and in 7 potential stronghold populations containing another 4,000 lions. Reports from the IUCN Species Survival Commission Cat Specialist Group (IUN 2006a, b) characterize the population as increasing in 3 of those strongholds, as stable in 6 of the strongholds, and as decreasing in 1 stronghold. Most lion populations in protected areas of southern and eastern Africa have been essentially stable over the last three decades (Ray
The best available scientific and commercial information leads us to conclude that the African lion is in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Accordingly, we find that listing is warranted and we propose to list it as a threatened species throughout its range, wherever found.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
We found the African lion to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, no portions of the species' range are “significant” as defined in our SPR policy and no additional SPR analysis is required.
The purposes of the ESA are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in the ESA. When a species is listed as endangered, certain actions are prohibited under section 9 of the ESA, as specified in 50 CFR 17.21. These include, among others, prohibitions on take within the United States, within the territorial seas of the United States, or upon the high seas; import; export; and shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity.
The ESA does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Commerce depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue such regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Exercising this discretion, the Service has developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the ESA that apply to most threatened species. Under 50 CFR 17.32, permits may be issued to allow persons to engage in otherwise prohibited acts for certain purposes.
Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Secretary, who has delegated this authority to the Service, may also develop specific prohibitions and exceptions tailored to the particular conservation needs of a threatened species. In such cases, the Service issues a 4 (d) rule that may include some or all of the prohibitions and authorizations set out in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 but which also may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. For the African lion, the Service has determined that a 4(d) rule is appropriate.
We propose to add a 4(d) (special) rule for the African lion (
The intent of this proposed 4(d) rule is to provide for the conservation of the African lion consistent with the purposes of the Act. Under the proposed 4(d) rule, the prohibitions would, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever, in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any lion specimens. It would also be illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. We believe that these protections, including the requirement for an import permit for all African lion specimens, will support and encourage conservation actions for the African lion and require that permitted activities involving lions are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the Act and our implementing regulations.
In connection with this proposed 4(d) rule, the Service notes that the African lion is listed in Appendix II of CITES, and thus can be imported into the U.S. pursuant to Section 9(c)(2) of the Act and upon presentation of a proper CITES export permit from the country of origin. Section 9(c)(2) of the Act provides that the otherwise lawful importation of wildlife that is not an endangered species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act, but that is listed in Appendix II of CITES, shall be presumed to be in compliance with provisions of the Act and implementing regulations. While there has been question as to whether this provision of the Act might automatically require allowing the importation of a species that is both listed as threatened and in Appendix II, and preclude the issuance of more restrictive 4 (d) rules covering importation, the Service has concluded that such 4 (d) rules may be issued to provide for the conservation of the involved species. Section 9(c)(2) does not expressly refer to threatened species or prevent the issuance of appropriate 4 (d) rules and could not logically have been intended to allow the addition of a species to an appendix of an international convention to override the needs of U.S. law, where there is reliable evidence to affect the presumption of validity. Finally, the term “presumed” implies that the established presumption is rebuttable under certain circumstances, including through the promulgation of a protective regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act.
In the case of the African lion, there are substantive grounds on which to challenge the presumption. For the import of sport-hunted trophies, while there is evidence that many of the range countries are implementing lion management plans, we want to encourage and support efforts by these countries to develop plans that are based on sound scientific information. As noted, the proposed 4(d) rule for African lion would provide for the importation into the United States of trophies taken legally in range countries upon the issuance of a threatened species import permit. While the Service cannot control hunting of foreign species such as African lion, we can regulate their importation and thereby require that U.S. imports of sport-hunted African lion trophy specimens are obtained in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the conservation of the subspecies in the wild, by allowing importation from range countries that have management plans that are based on scientifically sound data and are being implemented to address the threats that are facing lions within that country.
Such management plans would be expected to address, but are not limited to, evaluating population levels and trends; the biological needs of the species; quotas; management practices; legal protection; local community involvement; and use of hunting fees for conservation. In evaluating these factors, we will work closely with the range countries and interested parties to obtain the best available scientific and commercial data. By allowing entry into the United States of African lion trophies from range countries that have scientifically based management plans, the range countries would be encouraged to adopt and financially support the sustainable management of lions that benefits both the species and local communities. In addition to addressing the biological needs of the subspecies, a scientifically based management plan would provide economic incentives for local communities to protect and expand African lion habitat.
As stated, anyone wishing to conduct any otherwise prohibited activity, such as interstate commerce or imports, must first obtain a permit under the current permitting regulations found at 50 CFR 13 and 50 CFR 17. As will all permits, the individual requesting authorization to carry out an otherwise prohibited activity under the Act must submit a permit application to the Service with specific information concerning the proposed activity and the benefits/impacts of the activity on the species. In some cases, such as imports of sport-hunted trophies, it is not always possible for the applicant to provide all of the necessary information needed by the Service to make a positive determination under the Act to authorize the activity. For the import of sport-hunted trophies, it is typical for the Service to consult with the range country and other interested parties to obtain the necessary information. To date, the Service typically has made the required findings on sport-hunted trophy imports on a country-wide basis, although individual import permits are issued for each applicant. While the Service encourages the submission of information from individual applicants, we would primarily rely on information from other sources when making a permitting decision.
This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to add the African lion to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This rule, if adopted, would also establish a 4(d) rule for the African lion, which implements all of the prohibitions and exceptions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 and requires a threatened species import permit under 50 CFR 17.32 for the importation of all African lion specimens. Under the proposed 4(d) rule, the import exemption found in 50 CFR 17.8 for threatened wildlife listed in Appendix II of CITES would not apply to this subspecies. Through the promulgation of the proposed 4(d) rule, the presumption of legality provided under Section 9(c)(2) of the Act for the otherwise lawful importation of wildlife listed in Appendix II of CITES that is not an endangered species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act would not apply to this subspecies. (See: Proposed Special Rule section).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition of conservation status, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in public awareness and conservation actions by Federal and State governments in the United States, foreign governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or upon the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be listed or is listed as endangered or threatened. Because the African lion is not native to the United States, no critical habitat is being proposed for designation with this rule. Regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 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 a listed species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a proposed Federal action may adversely affect a listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service. Currently, with respect to the African lion, no Federal activities are known that would require consultation.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 set forth a series of general prohibitions that apply to all threatened wildlife, except where a 4(d) rule applies, in which case the 4(d) rule will contain all the applicable prohibitions and exceptions. If the 4(d) rule is adopted as proposed, these prohibitions would apply to the African lion. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to “take” (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever, in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any lion specimens. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A list of all references cited in this document is available at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff of the Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
For the reasons described in the preamble, we propose to 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) * * *
(n) African lion (
(1)
(2) The import exemption found in § 17.8 of this part for threatened wildlife listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) does not apply to this subspecies. A threatened species import permit under § 17.32 of this part is required for the importation of all African lion specimens.
(3) All applicable provisions of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, 17, and 23 must be met.